ProEthica Case 158 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.836037
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 71-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 71-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 71-2, a case involving the brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work, this Board, in examining predecessor Section 6, recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
textreferences: In BER Case 71-2, a case involving the brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work, this Board, in examining predecessor Section 6, recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
textreferences: This Board affirmed its decision rendered in Case 71-2 that in the field of consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that in consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience, or to retain qualified specialists; applied by analogy to the employment context of the instant case
version: 1971
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

BER Case 71-2 (1971) before BER Case 78-5 (1978)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

BER Case 71-2 (1971) before current NSPE Board analysis of Engineer A's conduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

BER Case 78-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 78-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: A second BER case, Case 78-5, involved an effort by a consulting firm under consideration to perform services to a public utility in which the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract.
textreferences: A second BER case, Case 78-5, involved an effort by a consulting firm under consideration to perform services to a public utility in which the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract.
textreferences: This Board affirmed its decision rendered in Case 71-2 that in the field of consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as precedent affirming Case 71-2's holding on competence obligations; involved a consulting firm attempting to alter its qualifications after an interview to improve its competitive position for a public utility contract
version: 1978
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

BER Case 78-5 (1978) before current NSPE Board analysis of Engineer A's conduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application — Cases 71-2 and 78-5 to County Surveyor
type: BERPrecedentCross-DomainAnalogicalApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly acknowledged that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 involved 'quite dissimilar' facts to the county surveyor case but nonetheless drew on their guidance regarding the same Code provisions, illustrating the constraint that factual dissimilarity does not nullify precedent bearing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained to acknowledge the factual dissimilarities between BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 (consulting practice context) and the county surveyor case (employment context) while still recognizing that those cases address the same Code provisions and have some bearing on the Board's understanding of those provisions.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
sourcetext: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical analysis of the county surveyor case
textreferences: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

BER Precedent Rationale Cross-Factual Relevance — Cases 71-2 and 78-5 Competence Provisions
type: BERPrecedentRationaleCross-FactualRelevanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board acknowledged the factual dissimilarities between BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 and the county surveyor case but held that those cases 'do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions,' illustrating the constraint that precedent rationale retains cross-factual relevance even when specific holdings do not directly control.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: BER Precedent Rationale Cross-Factual Relevance Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained to draw on the rationale and policy reasons articulated in BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 regarding the competence provisions of Section II.2, even though those cases involved factually dissimilar consulting-practice contexts, because the underlying Code provisions and their purposes remained relevant to the county surveyor analysis.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical analysis of the county surveyor case
textreferences: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Board BER Cases 71-2 78-5 Consulting Context Inapplicability County Surveyor
type: PriorBERConsulting-ContextPrecedentEmployment-ContextInapplicabilityDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prior BER Consulting-Context Precedent Employment-Context Inapplicability Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to recognize that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5, decided in the consulting-practice context, did not automatically govern the county surveyor employment scenario, while acknowledging their partial relevance to understanding the applicable Code provisions
casecontext: Board analysis of whether prior consulting-context BER precedents controlled the county surveyor employment appointment scenario
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Explicit acknowledgment that the prior cases are 'quite dissimilar' factually but 'do have some bearing,' followed by articulation of the critical consulting-versus-employment distinction
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
textreferences: Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
textreferences: The Code provisions under consideration in the case have been interpreted in the past by this Board in the context of consulting engineering services and not in the context of an employment relationship.
textreferences: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Board Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Section II.2 County Surveyor
type: MutuallyDependentCodeProvisionIntegratedReadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly required that Section II.2.c be read in the context of the other provisions of Section II.2 that establish the fundamental competence requirement, rejecting the argument that II.2.c provided an independent pathway to accept the county surveyor position.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to read Section II.2.c (specialist retention provision) in the context of the preceding competence provisions of Section II.2 (particularly II.2.a and II.2.b), recognizing that the provisions are interdependent and that reading II.2.c in isolation would produce an incorrect ethical conclusion.
sourcetext: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's county surveyor appointment
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Board Oversight Role Minimum Competence Prerequisite County Surveyor
type: OversightRoleMinimumSubstantiveCompetencePrerequisiteRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Oversight Role Minimum Substantive Competence Prerequisite Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to recognize that the county surveyor's oversight-only role still required at minimum a substantive degree of background and experience in surveying and highway engineering, and that Engineer A's complete absence of such background made effective oversight impossible
casecontext: Board analysis of whether Engineer A's oversight-only role description could satisfy the competence requirements of Section II.2
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Articulation of the 'bare minimum' substantive competence threshold and rejection of the oversight-only exemption argument
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
textreferences: Second, at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position.
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
textreferences: We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Board Prior Consulting Precedent Employment Context Inapplicability BER Cases 71-2 78-5
type: PriorConsulting-ContextPrecedentEmployment-ContextInapplicabilityRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly acknowledged that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 arose in consulting practice contexts dissimilar to the instant employment context, and conducted an independent analysis rather than mechanically transposing the consulting-practice precedents.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Prior Consulting-Context Precedent Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to recognize that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5, decided in the consulting-practice context, did not automatically govern the county surveyor employment situation, and to conduct an independent analysis of the Code provisions as applied to the statutory employment context.
sourcetext: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's county surveyor appointment
textreferences: Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
textreferences: The Code provisions under consideration in the case have been interpreted in the past by this Board in the context of consulting engineering services and not in the context of an employment relationship
textreferences: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.849035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Board Section II.2.c Integrated Reading County Surveyor
type: SectionII.2.cSpecialistRetentionProvisionEmployment-ContextInapplicabilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to recognize that Section II.2.c must be read in the context of the preceding competence provisions and cannot serve as an independent ethical escape route to justify accepting a statutory employment position requiring domain competence the engineer does not possess
casecontext: Board analysis of whether Section II.2.c could provide an ethical avenue for Engineer A to serve as county surveyor by retaining qualified specialists
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Explicit analysis rejecting the Section II.2.c specialist retention argument as an independent ethical pathway for Engineer A's county surveyor appointment
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
textreferences: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Case 158 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Case 78-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

CausalLink_Commissioners Appoint Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Surveyor Po
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Commissioners Appoint Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Commissioners Appoint Engineer A → Engineer A Holds PE License (satisfies formal requirement) but Engineer A Lacks Surveying Competence (creates ethical violation)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.165736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's acceptance was unethical, the case reveals a prior and independent ethical obligation that the Board did not explicitly address: Engineer A bore an affirmative duty of proactive disclosure before accepting the appointment. A PE who recognizes that a prospective role falls outside their domain of competence is not merely obligated to decline — they are obligated to inform the appointing authority of that limitation so the authority can make an informed decision. The county commissioners, operating under a county ordinance that specified only 'PE' without domain qualification, may have genuinely believed that any PE credential was substantively sufficient. Engineer A, as the party with direct knowledge of both the role's technical demands and his own chemical engineering background, was uniquely positioned to correct that misapprehension. Silence in the face of a foreseeable misunderstanding about professional competence is itself an ethical failure distinct from the act of acceptance. The Board's conclusion that acceptance was unethical implicitly subsumes this disclosure failure, but the failure to disclose represents an independent violation of the duty of candor and the obligation to protect the public interest that warranted explicit recognition.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.165830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion exposes a structural asymmetry that deserves explicit articulation: the consulting-context flexibility recognized in BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 — whereby an engineer may coordinate an entire project by retaining domain-qualified specialists under Section II.2.c — is architecturally incompatible with fixed public employment roles such as county surveyor. In a consulting arrangement, the coordinating engineer retains contractual and structural authority to define the scope of specialist engagement, to decline project components that exceed collective competence, and to exit engagements where competence gaps cannot be remediated. None of these corrective mechanisms are available to a county surveyor operating under a statutory appointment. The county surveyor's oversight duties are defined by ordinance, not by the appointee's election; the subjects of oversight — surveying reports and highway improvement projects — cannot be selectively excluded; and the appointee cannot unilaterally restructure the role's technical demands. Consequently, Section II.2.c's specialist-retention provision cannot serve as an ethical escape valve in this context, not merely because the Board declined to apply it, but because the structural preconditions for its ethical application — discretionary scope definition, remediable competence gaps, and exit optionality — are categorically absent in fixed statutory employment. This distinction between consulting flexibility and employment rigidity represents a principled ethical boundary, not a mere structural convenience.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.165923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's acceptance was unethical implicitly resolves, but does not explicitly address, the consequentialist argument that a domain-incompetent PE in the county surveyor role might produce better public outcomes than either a vacant position or a non-PE appointee. This argument deserves direct analytical refutation rather than implicit dismissal. The consequentialist case for Engineer A's acceptance rests on the assumption that the marginal public benefit of having any PE credential in the role — as a formal check on the process — exceeds the marginal public harm of having an oversight authority who lacks the domain knowledge to exercise meaningful judgment over surveying reports and highway improvement projects. This assumption fails on its own consequentialist terms for two reasons. First, a domain-incompetent overseer does not merely provide reduced oversight — they provide illusory oversight, which may be worse than acknowledged absence of oversight because it suppresses the institutional pressure to find a qualified alternative. Second, the consequentialist calculus must account for the systemic harm of normalizing credential-without-competence appointments: if PEs in unrelated disciplines routinely accept public oversight roles on the theory that some credential is better than none, the public trust in PE licensure as a meaningful competence signal is progressively eroded. The Board was therefore correct to apply a deontological competence threshold rather than a consequentialist harm-balancing framework, and the ethical prohibition on out-of-domain acceptance holds regardless of whether the immediate public harm from Engineer A's specific tenure would have been demonstrable.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A bore an independent and affirmative ethical obligation to proactively disclose his chemical engineering background to the county commissioners before accepting the appointment, rather than relying on the commissioners to make that determination themselves. The NSPE Code's competence provisions place the duty of self-assessment squarely on the individual engineer, not on the appointing authority. The commissioners' decision to appoint Engineer A was made within an institutional framework that may have assumed any PE credential was sufficient; Engineer A, as the professional, possessed the specific knowledge that his background was in chemical engineering and that surveying and highway improvement oversight fell entirely outside that domain. Silence in the face of that knowledge — particularly when accepting a public trust position — constitutes a failure of the proactive disclosure duty that the Code's higher ethical standard demands. The ethical obligation to disclose was not contingent on whether the commissioners asked the right questions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: While the county commissioners bear an independent institutional responsibility for verifying that their appointee possesses domain-specific competence — and their failure to do so represents a lapse in governmental stewardship — this shared institutional failure does not diminish Engineer A's individual ethical culpability. The NSPE Code imposes obligations on the engineer as an individual professional, not on the appointing body. The commissioners' error is a governance failure; Engineer A's error is a professional ethics failure. These are analytically distinct and operate on separate normative planes. The existence of the commissioners' responsibility may be relevant to a broader policy critique of the appointment process, but it cannot serve as a mitigating factor that reduces Engineer A's obligation to decline an appointment for which he lacked domain competence. Shared fault does not halve individual ethical responsibility under the Code's framework.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The availability or unavailability of a domain-qualified PE to fill the county surveyor position is ethically relevant as a contextual consideration but does not alter the fundamental ethical analysis of Engineer A's acceptance. The NSPE Code does not contain a necessity exception that permits an out-of-competence engineer to accept a position simply because no qualified alternative is willing to serve. If no qualified PE is available, the ethical resolution lies in reforming the ordinance, seeking a waiver, or leaving the position temporarily vacant — not in appointing an engineer whose background is entirely unrelated to the role's substantive duties. The absence of alternatives may generate sympathy for the county's predicament, but it cannot transform an ethically impermissible acceptance into a permissible one. Engineer A's ethical obligation to decline was categorical, not contingent on the availability of a better-qualified substitute.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: An interim or temporary acceptance of the county surveyor position would not have rendered Engineer A's conduct ethically permissible unless several demanding conditions were simultaneously satisfied: Engineer A would have needed to immediately and formally disclose his competence limitations to the commissioners in writing; a licensed professional surveyor or civil engineer with domain-specific competence would have needed to hold formally delegated technical authority over all surveying and highway improvement oversight decisions from the outset; the interim arrangement would have needed a defined and short time horizon with active recruitment of a qualified PE underway; and Engineer A would have needed to refrain from exercising any independent technical judgment over matters outside his competence. Even under these conditions, the arrangement would remain ethically precarious because the county surveyor's oversight duties require substantive domain judgment that cannot be fully delegated without effectively transferring the role itself. The more defensible conclusion is that even a temporary acceptance, absent these structural safeguards, would replicate the same ethical violation on a shorter timeline.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between the principle that a PE license grounds a public duty to serve the public interest and the principle that a PE license is not equivalent to domain-specific competence is resolved decisively in favor of the latter when the role in question requires substantive technical oversight in a domain unrelated to the engineer's background. The public duty grounded in PE licensure is a general duty of professional integrity and public protection — it is not a duty to accept any appointment for which a PE credential is formally required. Indeed, the public interest is better served by declining an out-of-competence appointment than by accepting it, because the public's reliance on the county surveyor's oversight judgment presupposes that the person exercising that judgment possesses the domain knowledge necessary to make it meaningful. A PE license without domain competence does not fulfill the public trust; it merely satisfies a formal credential requirement while leaving the substantive public protection function unmet.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.165544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The consequentialist argument that appointing any PE — even an out-of-domain one — produces better public outcomes than leaving the position vacant or filled by a non-PE is superficially appealing but ultimately fails on closer examination. The argument assumes that the presence of a PE credential, independent of domain competence, provides meaningful public protection in an oversight role. This assumption is false: a chemical engineer overseeing surveying reports and highway improvement projects cannot meaningfully evaluate the technical adequacy of those documents, identify errors, or exercise the professional judgment the oversight role demands. The formal satisfaction of the PE requirement without substantive competence creates a false assurance of oversight quality that may be worse than acknowledged vacancy, because it forecloses the county's recognition of the need to seek genuinely qualified oversight. The principle that ethics demands a higher standard than the legal minimum therefore does not conflict with public welfare paramount in this case — both principles converge on the conclusion that Engineer A's acceptance was impermissible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The fact that the county surveyor's duties involve oversight rather than the preparation of engineering or surveying documents does not eliminate the domain competence requirement — it merely shifts the form that competence must take. Oversight of technical work requires the ability to evaluate whether that work is technically sound, to identify deficiencies, to ask the right questions of subordinate specialists, and to exercise professional judgment about whether reports and project plans meet applicable standards. These are substantive domain-specific capabilities, not generic administrative skills that any PE possesses by virtue of licensure. The principle that oversight roles require a minimum competence threshold is therefore not in conflict with the principle that institutional roles cannot expand an engineer's competence — both principles apply simultaneously and reinforce the conclusion that Engineer A's appointment was ethically impermissible. The oversight-only character of the role reduces the risk of direct document-signing errors but does not eliminate the underlying competence gap that makes meaningful oversight impossible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The Section II.2.c specialist retention provision cannot be invoked by Engineer A to cure the competence gap in his county surveyor role because the employment context structurally forecloses the conditions under which that provision operates. In a consulting context, an engineer who retains specialists maintains project-level coordination authority while specialists exercise independent technical judgment within their domains, and the engineer's coordination role is itself a recognized form of competence. In a fixed public employment role, the county surveyor's oversight authority is statutory and non-delegable — the position itself is the locus of public accountability, and that accountability cannot be transferred to subordinate specialists without effectively vacating the role. Furthermore, the Board's integrated reading of Sections II.2.b and II.2.c establishes that the coordination permission in II.2.c presupposes satisfaction of the competence prerequisite in II.2.b. Engineer A cannot invoke the coordination provision as a workaround for the competence prohibition; the two provisions operate as a unified structure, not as independent alternatives.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill the categorical duty imposed by the NSPE Code to practice only within areas of competence. The Code's competence provisions function as deontological constraints — they do not permit utilitarian trade-offs or exceptions based on the administrative character of the role. Holding a PE license in chemical engineering creates a categorical obligation to decline appointments in unrelated disciplines when those appointments require the exercise of domain-specific professional judgment, regardless of whether the role involves document preparation. The deontological force of this obligation derives from the nature of professional licensure itself: a PE license is a public representation of competence within a defined domain, and accepting an appointment that relies on that representation in an unrelated domain constitutes a misrepresentation of professional capacity. The administrative or oversight character of the county surveyor role does not create a categorical exception to this duty — it merely changes the form of the competence required without eliminating the requirement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the harm potential of Engineer A's oversight role is not meaningfully reduced by the fact that he would not prepare or sign engineering or surveying documents. The consequentialist analysis must account for the full range of harms that flow from incompetent oversight: approval of deficient surveying reports, failure to identify errors in highway improvement projects, misallocation of public resources, and erosion of public trust in the professional oversight function. These harms are not hypothetical — they are the predictable consequences of placing a chemical engineer in a role that requires evaluative judgment about surveying and highway engineering work. The public benefit of having a credentialed PE in the position is illusory if the credential does not correspond to the domain competence the oversight role requires. A consequentialist analysis that accounts for the full probability-weighted harm of incompetent oversight — rather than merely the reduced risk of document-signing errors — supports the Board's conclusion that acceptance was unethical.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position reflects a failure of the virtue of professional humility — the disposition to accurately assess the boundaries of one's own competence and to act accordingly. A professionally humble engineer, upon being offered an appointment in a domain entirely outside his educational and experiential background, would recognize that the formal credential requirement does not correspond to the substantive competence the role demands, and would decline. The acceptance also reflects a potential failure of intellectual honesty: if Engineer A understood that his chemical engineering background was unrelated to surveying and highway improvement oversight, accepting the position without disclosure represents a form of professional self-misrepresentation, even if unintentional. Virtue ethics does not require that an engineer be infallible, but it does require that an engineer's self-assessment be honest and that his conduct reflect genuine concern for the public trust the role embodies — conditions that Engineer A's acceptance failed to satisfy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: The NSPE Code's Sections II.2.b and II.2.c do function as a mutually reinforcing duty structure that cannot be disaggregated to permit Engineer A to invoke the coordination provision while bypassing the competence prerequisite. Section II.2.b establishes that an engineer shall not affix signatures to documents dealing with subject matter outside competence — this provision encodes the principle that professional authority requires domain competence as its predicate. Section II.2.c permits coordination of entire projects and assumption of responsibility for specialist work — but this permission is conditioned on the engineer being otherwise competent to coordinate, which requires at minimum the ability to evaluate whether specialist work meets applicable standards. An engineer who cannot evaluate the technical adequacy of surveying reports cannot meaningfully coordinate a project that depends on those reports. Reading II.2.c as an independent permission that operates without the competence predicate of II.2.b would render the Code's competence framework internally incoherent. The integrated reading is therefore not merely a policy preference but a structural necessity of the Code's internal logic.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If the county surveyor position had involved no oversight of technical surveying or highway engineering work — if it were purely administrative in character, involving budget management, personnel administration, and scheduling without any evaluation of technical documents or project adequacy — the ethical analysis would have been materially different. The decisive ethical threshold in this case is the presence of substantive oversight duties that require domain-specific professional judgment. A purely administrative role does not require the exercise of surveying or highway engineering competence, and a PE from any discipline might plausibly satisfy the credential requirement without creating a competence gap that endangers the public. The Board's conclusion is therefore best understood as turning on the substantive content of the oversight duties rather than on the mere fact of cross-disciplinary appointment. The presence of technical oversight duties is the operative ethical trigger, not the formal title of county surveyor.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer A had accepted the position conditionally, immediately disclosed his competence limitations in writing to the county commissioners, and proposed a formal structural arrangement in which a licensed professional surveyor or civil engineer held delegated technical authority for all surveying and highway improvement oversight decisions, this proactive remediation would have addressed some but not all of the ethical concerns. The disclosure and structural proposal would satisfy the transparency and honesty obligations that Engineer A's silent acceptance violated. However, the fundamental problem — that the county surveyor's statutory oversight authority is non-delegable and that Engineer A would remain the nominal holder of public accountability for decisions he lacked the competence to make — would persist. The Board's analysis suggests that the employment context forecloses the consulting-style specialist delegation that Section II.2.c contemplates. Proactive disclosure and structural remediation would therefore improve Engineer A's ethical posture relative to silent acceptance but would likely not have been sufficient to render the acceptance fully permissible under the Code.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If the county ordinance had specified not merely a PE credential but a PE with surveying or civil engineering experience, the ordinance's domain specificity would have made the competence requirement legally explicit and would have placed a clearer institutional responsibility on the commissioners to verify domain alignment before appointment. However, the ordinance's failure to specify domain expertise does not shift ethical responsibility from Engineer A to the commissioners in any meaningful degree. The NSPE Code's competence obligations are self-executing — they apply to the individual engineer regardless of whether the appointing authority has designed its credential requirements with sufficient specificity. Engineer A's obligation to assess his own competence relative to the role's substantive duties existed independently of the ordinance's language. The ordinance's imprecision is a governance design flaw; it does not create an ethical permission for Engineer A to accept an appointment for which he lacked domain competence. The ethical obligation is grounded in the Code, not in the ordinance.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 had arisen in an employment context rather than a consulting context, they would have more directly controlled the outcome in this case, but the consulting-versus-employment distinction represents a principled ethical boundary rather than a structural convenience. The distinction is principled because the consulting context permits a form of competence aggregation — through specialist retention and subconsultant engagement — that the employment context does not. In consulting, the engineer's coordination role is itself a recognized professional function, and the specialist's independent technical authority provides a genuine check on the engineer's domain limitations. In employment, the statutory role is the locus of public accountability, and that accountability cannot be meaningfully distributed across subordinates without vacating the role itself. The Board's treatment of this distinction as analytically significant is therefore correct: it reflects a genuine difference in the structural conditions under which competence gaps can be ethically managed, not merely a formal distinction between employment categories.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.166924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the principle that a PE license grounds a public duty to serve the public interest and the principle that a PE license is not equivalent to domain-specific competence was resolved decisively in favor of domain-specific competence. The Board's analysis makes clear that holding a PE credential satisfies a legal threshold but does not discharge the independent ethical obligation to possess substantive knowledge in the field being overseen. When these two principles collide — as they do when a county ordinance requires only a PE and no domain-qualified PE is willing to serve — the competence principle prevails. The public duty to serve cannot be invoked to justify accepting a role for which one lacks the foundational knowledge to exercise sound professional judgment. This resolution teaches that the PE license is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical acceptance of any engineering or engineering-adjacent public role, and that the public interest is better protected by a vacant position than by a credentialed but domain-incompetent occupant.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle that ethics demands a higher standard than the legal minimum operated as the decisive tiebreaker in this case, foreclosing any argument that Engineer A's formal compliance with the county ordinance's PE requirement rendered his acceptance ethically permissible. The Board's reasoning implicitly establishes a two-stage test: first, whether the legal credential requirement is satisfied, and second, whether the engineer's actual competence meets the substantive demands of the role. Engineer A passed the first stage and failed the second. This case teaches that when a statutory or regulatory requirement is underspecified — here, the ordinance required only a PE without specifying domain expertise — the ethical obligation fills the gap. Engineers cannot exploit regulatory underspecification to accept roles they are substantively unqualified to perform. The higher-standard principle thus functions as a gap-filling norm that prevents legal formalism from displacing professional responsibility.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 404
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between Sections II.2.b and II.2.c reveals an integrated, mutually reinforcing duty structure that forecloses Engineer A's most plausible remediation argument. Section II.2.c permits an engineer to accept coordination responsibility for an entire project and retain specialists for work outside their competence — a provision that might appear to authorize Engineer A to accept the county surveyor role while delegating technical surveying and highway engineering judgments to qualified subordinates. However, the Board's reasoning treats II.2.b and II.2.c as inseparable: the coordination permission in II.2.c presupposes that the coordinating engineer possesses sufficient domain literacy to evaluate, integrate, and take responsible charge of the specialists' outputs. Because oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects requires the exercise of substantive professional judgment — not merely administrative management — Engineer A could not satisfy the competence prerequisite embedded in II.2.c's coordination provision. This synthesis resolves the tension between the interdisciplinary coordination principle and the oversight-competence minimum threshold principle by holding that coordination authority cannot be used to circumvent the competence floor; it can only extend competence at the margins, not substitute for it wholesale. Furthermore, the employment context renders II.2.c structurally inapplicable: a fixed public employment role does not permit the flexible, project-by-project specialist engagement that II.2.c contemplates in consulting practice, making the consulting-versus-employment distinction a principled ethical boundary rather than a structural convenience.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Consulting Engineering Firm Retaining Specialists
type: Specialist-RetainingPrimeConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'context': 'Private consulting practice', 'flexibility': 'Can structure workforce, establish joint ventures, hire specialists, create subcontracts', 'competency_gap_remedy': 'Retention of qualified specialists is ethically permissible and expected', 'distinction_from_case': 'Contrasted with employment relationship of county surveyor where such flexibility is unavailable'}
caseinvolvement: Referenced in the Board's discussion as a contrasting example: a consulting engineering firm retained to perform engineering and land surveying services that lacks in-house surveying expertise has the flexibility to retain qualified specialists, establish joint ventures, or hire additional personnel — a flexibility not available to a county surveyor in an employment relationship context.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:15.377571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:15.377571+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'contrasted_with', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise
textreferences: engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently
textreferences: if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise
textreferences: in the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.842206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Consulting Firm Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement County Surveyor Contrast
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: A consulting engineering firm retained to perform engineering and land surveying services that lacks expertise in land surveying possesses the capability to remediate that gap by retaining individuals with the necessary expertise — a flexibility available in consulting practice but not in statutory employment
casecontext: Referenced by the Board as a contrasting example to illustrate the consulting-versus-employment flexibility distinction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The Board's use of the consulting firm specialist retention example as a contrasting case to illustrate why the same flexibility is unavailable to Engineer A as county surveyor
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Consulting Engineering Firm Retaining Specialists
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
textreferences: Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently.
textreferences: For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement — Land Surveying Firm Example
type: Consultingvs.EmploymentContextCompetenceFlexibilityDifferentialConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board used the consulting firm land surveying example to illustrate the consulting-practice flexibility that distinguishes the consulting context from Engineer A's fixed public employment context, where no such remediation mechanism is available.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Consulting Engineering Firm (hypothetical)
constraintclass: Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
constraintstatement: A consulting engineering firm retained to perform engineering and land surveying services that lacks expertise in land surveying is constrained to retain individuals with that expertise — a remediation mechanism available in the dynamic consulting context but unavailable to Engineer A in his fixed public employment role as county surveyor.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.c; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
sourcetext: For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
temporalscope: At the time of engagement acceptance and during performance of services
textreferences: Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently.
textreferences: For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.851778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Consulting vs. Employment Competence Flexibility Differential — Engineer A County Surveyor
type: Consultingvs.EmploymentContextCompetenceFlexibilityDifferentialConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, accepted appointment as county surveyor. The Board distinguished the consulting-practice context of BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 — where firms can subcontract or restructure to fill competence gaps — from Engineer A's fixed public employment context, where no such remediation mechanisms are available.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, as a fixed public employee in the county surveyor role, could not invoke the consulting-practice flexibility of subcontracting, joint ventures, or workforce restructuring to remedy his lack of competence in surveying and highway engineering, making it effectively impossible to ethically perform the duties of the position.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
temporalscope: From the moment of appointment acceptance through the duration of employment as county surveyor
textreferences: However, in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
textreferences: In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained.
textreferences: Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Consulting vs. Employment Competence Flexibility Differential — Engineer A Fixed Public Role
type: Consultingvs.EmploymentContextCompetenceFlexibilityDifferentialConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board distinguished consulting-context precedents (BER 71-2, 78-5) from Engineer A's fixed public employment role, where no structural remediation of the competence gap was available.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's fixed public employment role as county surveyor provided no structural mechanism to subcontract, hire specialists, or restructure the engagement to supply the missing surveying and highway engineering competence, making the consulting-context remediation pathways recognized in BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 unavailable and rendering the competence gap ethically irremediable within the employment context.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: Engineer A accepted the position.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout tenure
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.846225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Commissioners Appointing Authority
type: CountySurveyorAppointingAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'body_type': 'County governmental commission', 'authority': 'Statutory appointment authority for county surveyor position', 'action': 'Appointed Engineer A despite competence mismatch'}
caseinvolvement: The county commissioners held statutory authority to fill the county surveyor position and appointed Engineer A (a chemical PE) after the first appointee was deemed unqualified for lacking PE licensure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:42.326079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:42.326079+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'appoints', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
relationships: {'type': 'enforces_ordinance', 'target': 'County PE Licensure Requirement'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: County Surveyor Appointing Authority
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Commissioners Appointing Authority Competence Verification County Surveyor
type: AppointingAuthorityCompetenceVerificationBeforePublicPositionAppointmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After the first appointee was disqualified for lacking a PE license, the county commissioners appointed Engineer A solely on the basis of PE licensure without apparent inquiry into whether chemical engineering competence was relevant to surveying and highway engineering oversight duties.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: County Commissioners
obligationclass: Appointing Authority Competence Verification Before Public Position Appointment Obligation
obligationstatement: The county commissioners were obligated to verify that Engineer A possessed not merely a PE license (satisfying the ordinance's credential requirement) but also domain-specific competence in surveying and highway engineering before appointing Engineer A as county surveyor, recognizing that a PE license in chemical engineering does not establish competence in the technical domains the position requires.
sourcetext: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position.
temporalscope: Before making the appointment of Engineer A
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.844973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Commissioners Appointing Authority Engineering Competence Domain Verification County Surveyor
type: AppointingAuthorityEngineeringCompetenceDomainVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Appointing Authority Engineering Competence Domain Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: The county commissioners were obligated to possess and exercise the capability to verify that Engineer A's competence — established through education and experience in chemical engineering — was specifically relevant to the surveying and highway engineering duties of the county surveyor position, and not merely that Engineer A held a PE license satisfying the ordinance's credential requirement.
casecontext: The county commissioners appointed Engineer A after the first appointee was rejected for lacking a PE license, apparently treating PE licensure as sufficient without investigating whether Engineer A's chemical engineering background matched the position's technical requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Appointment of Engineer A based on PE licensure without verifying domain-relevant competence in surveying or highway engineering
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: County Commissioners
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.839609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Ordinance - County Surveyor P.E. Requirement
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Local county legislative body
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Local County Ordinance Requiring P.E. Licensure for County Surveyor Position
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position.
usedby: County commissioners in making appointment decision; Engineer A in accepting the position
usedincontext: Establishes the legal credential requirement that the county surveyor must be a licensed P.E., triggering the appointment of Engineer A and the ethical question of disciplinary competence adequacy
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Ordinance Establishes PE Requirement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Ordinance Establishes PE Requirement → First Appointee Removed as Unqualified
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Ordinance PE Requirement Regulatory Context
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — established by county ordinance and persisting as the legal backdrop for the appointment
affectedparties: County commissioners
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future county surveyor appointees
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: The legal framework requiring a PE to fill the county surveyor position
terminatedby: Ordinance amendment or repeal
textreferences: first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
textreferences: local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
triggeringevent: County ordinance establishing PE requirement for county surveyor position; prior appointee removed for non-compliance
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.841578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Ordinance PE Requirement — Legal Credential Constraint County Surveyor
type: LegalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ordinance's PE requirement was the formal trigger for Engineer A's appointment after the first appointee was deemed unqualified, but the ordinance's credential requirement did not address domain-specific competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: County commissioners and county surveyor appointee
constraintclass: Legal Constraint
constraintstatement: The county ordinance established a hard legal constraint requiring that the county surveyor position be filled by a licensed PE, which the first appointee failed to satisfy and which triggered Engineer A's appointment — but which, while necessary, was not sufficient to establish ethical permissibility of the appointment.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Local county ordinance requiring PE licensure for county surveyor position
sourcetext: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable to all appointments to the county surveyor position
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.846528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Surveyor Position
type: StatutoryCountySurveyorPublicOversightRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'position_type': 'Statutory public position', 'jurisdiction': 'County level', 'core_duties': 'Oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects', 'competence_required': 'Land surveying and highway improvements expertise', 'document_authority': 'Does not include actual preparation or approval of engineering/surveying documents'}
caseinvolvement: The statutory county surveyor position to which Engineer A was appointed, bearing non-delegable oversight responsibilities for surveying reports and highway improvement projects that require substantive domain expertise in land surveying and highway improvements to fulfill ethically and competently.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:15.377571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:15.377571+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Surveyor Appointing Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'filled_by', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
sourcetext: the job responsibilities of the county surveyor do not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents; however, the job responsibilities do include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements
textreferences: one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position
textreferences: the job responsibilities of the county surveyor do not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents; however, the job responsibilities do include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.842024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

County Surveyor Position Outside Chemical Engineering Competence
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From acceptance of appointment through competence remediation or role termination
affectedparties: County
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Surveyors and highway engineers subject to oversight
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
stateclass: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer A's competence relative to surveying and highway improvement oversight duties
terminatedby: Engineer A acquiring sufficient domain knowledge, retaining qualified advisors, or resigning the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepting a county surveyor role requiring oversight of surveying and highway engineering with no background in either field
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.841388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Cross-Discipline PE Appointment Non-Sufficiency — Engineer A Chemical PE County Surveyor Acceptance
type: Cross-DisciplinePEAppointmentPublicRoleDomainNon-SufficiencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted the county surveyor appointment on the basis of holding a PE license, without recognizing that cross-discipline PE licensure in chemical engineering did not confer competence in the surveying and highway engineering domains required by the position.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Cross-Discipline PE Appointment Public Role Domain Non-Sufficiency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's PE licensure in chemical engineering was not sufficient qualification for accepting the county surveyor appointment, whose core duties required competence in surveying and highway engineering — materially different disciplines — and Engineer A was therefore constrained from accepting the position regardless of the ordinance's formal PE credential requirement being satisfied.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.847325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A accept the county surveyor appointment, decline it outright, or proactively disclose his chemical engineering background and domain incompetence to the county commissioners before any acceptance decision is made?
focus: Engineer A, a licensed PE with education and experience exclusively in chemical engineering, is offered appointment as county surveyor by the county commissioners. The position requires oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — domains outside Engineer A's competence. Before responding to the appointment offer, Engineer A must decide whether to accept, decline, or proactively disclose the competence gap to the appointing authority.
option1: Engineer A recognizes that his chemical engineering background does not provide the competence required to meaningfully oversee surveying reports and highway improvement projects, and formally declines the county surveyor appointment before acceptance, citing the NSPE Code's requirement to practice only within areas of competence.
option2: Engineer A affirmatively discloses to the county commissioners, prior to any acceptance, that his education and experience are confined to chemical engineering and do not encompass surveying or highway engineering, enabling the commissioners to make an informed appointment decision and fulfilling Engineer A's independent ethical disclosure obligation.
option3: Engineer A accepts the county surveyor position on the basis that he holds a valid PE license satisfying the county ordinance's credential requirement, without disclosing the domain competence gap or independently verifying that chemical engineering background is sufficient for the oversight duties of the role.
role label: Engineer A (Chemical PE Offered County Surveyor Appointment)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.161416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Once appointed, how should Engineer A attempt to discharge the county surveyor's oversight duties given his lack of domain competence in surveying and highway engineering?
focus: After accepting the county surveyor position, Engineer A — lacking competence in surveying and highway engineering — must decide how to discharge the non-delegable oversight duties of the role. The position explicitly excludes direct preparation of engineering or surveying documents, but requires Engineer A to oversee qualified surveyors who prepare those documents. Engineer A must choose between attempting to perform oversight personally, delegating oversight functions to qualified subordinates, or invoking Section II.2.c to retain specialists — recognizing that each path may itself constitute an ethical violation.
option1: Engineer A personally reviews and approves surveying reports and highway improvement projects using his chemical engineering background, without specialist assistance, thereby exercising the statutory oversight function but without the domain competence necessary to identify errors or exercise meaningful professional judgment in those fields.
option2: Engineer A effectively transfers the substantive oversight and judgment functions to qualified surveyors on staff, treating the non-delegable statutory oversight duty as dischargeable through subordinate action, on the theory that qualified staff presence cures his own competence deficit.
option3: Engineer A recognizes that every available course of action within the accepted position — direct oversight, delegation, or specialist retention — results in an ethical violation, and therefore resigns from the county surveyor position, acknowledging that the inescapability of ethical violation upon acceptance signals that acceptance itself was impermissible.
role label: Engineer A (Appointed County Surveyor Lacking Domain Competence)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.161507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should the county commissioners appoint Engineer A based solely on PE license credential compliance, or should they independently verify domain-specific competence in surveying and highway engineering before making the appointment?
focus: The county commissioners must decide whether to appoint Engineer A — a PE licensed in chemical engineering — to the county surveyor position. The county ordinance requires only that the appointee hold a PE license, which Engineer A satisfies. However, the commissioners have not verified whether Engineer A's chemical engineering background provides the domain-specific competence in surveying and highway engineering that the position's substantive duties require. The commissioners must choose between appointing Engineer A on the basis of legal credential compliance alone, conducting independent competence verification before appointment, or seeking a domain-qualified PE candidate.
option1: The commissioners appoint Engineer A upon confirming that he holds a valid PE license, treating satisfaction of the ordinance's credential requirement as sufficient basis for appointment without independently investigating whether his chemical engineering specialization provides competence in the surveying and highway engineering domains the position requires.
option2: The commissioners conduct independent verification — through review of Engineer A's education, training, and experience record — to confirm that his background encompasses surveying and highway engineering competence sufficient for the county surveyor's oversight duties, recognizing that a PE license in an unrelated discipline does not establish such competence.
option3: The commissioners decline to appoint Engineer A upon recognizing the domain competence gap, and instead actively recruit a PE candidate whose education and experience are in surveying, civil engineering, or highway engineering, thereby satisfying both the legal credential requirement and the substantive competence requirement the position demands.
role label: County Commissioners (Appointing Authority for County Surveyor)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.161588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Does the unavailability of a domain-qualified PE candidate ethically justify Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position on an interim basis, and if so, what conditions would be required to make such interim acceptance ethically permissible?
focus: The county faces a scenario in which no domain-qualified PE (with surveying or highway engineering background) is available or willing to accept the county surveyor appointment, and Engineer A — the only available PE — has been offered the position. The question arises whether the absence of a qualified alternative changes the ethical calculus for Engineer A's acceptance, or whether Engineer A might ethically accept on a temporary or interim basis while the county seeks a domain-qualified candidate, subject to defined conditions.
option1: Engineer A declines the county surveyor appointment regardless of whether a domain-qualified PE is available, maintaining that the unavailability of a qualified alternative does not alter the fundamental ethical prohibition against accepting a position whose duties fall outside his competence, and that public welfare is better served by a vacant position than by an incompetent appointee.
option2: Engineer A accepts the position on a strictly interim basis, conditioned on: simultaneous active recruitment of a domain-qualified PE replacement, formal written disclosure of the competence gap to the commissioners, explicit limitation of Engineer A's role to purely administrative functions with all technical oversight delegated to qualified licensed surveyors under a defined supervisory structure, and a fixed sunset date for the interim arrangement — recognizing that even these conditions may not fully resolve the non-delegability problem.
option3: Engineer A accepts the county surveyor position and treats the absence of a domain-qualified alternative as complete ethical justification for acceptance, proceeding without additional conditions, disclosures, or structural safeguards on the theory that public welfare requires any PE rather than no PE in the role.
role label: Engineer A (Only Available PE in Context of No Qualified Alternative)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.161671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the Board mechanically apply consulting-practice precedents (BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5) to the county surveyor employment context, or conduct an independent analysis recognizing that statutory public employment's non-delegable oversight duties and fixed-position constraints produce different ethical outcomes than consulting practice?
focus: The Board of Ethical Review must decide whether to apply its prior consulting-practice precedents (BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5) — which permitted engineers to coordinate interdisciplinary work through specialist retention under Section II.2.c — to the county surveyor employment context, or whether to conduct an independent analysis recognizing that the structural differences between consulting practice and statutory public employment produce different ethical outcomes under the same Code language.
option1: The Board applies BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 directly to the county surveyor situation, concluding that because consulting engineers may ethically coordinate interdisciplinary work through specialist retention, Engineer A may similarly discharge the county surveyor's oversight duties by relying on qualified surveyors on staff, without conducting an independent analysis of how statutory employment's structural constraints differ from consulting practice.
option2: The Board recognizes that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 were decided in the consulting-practice context — where dynamic workforce flexibility, subconsultant engagement, and joint ventures are available — and conducts an independent analysis of the Code provisions as applied to statutory public employment, concluding that the non-delegable oversight duty and fixed-position constraints of the county surveyor role produce a different ethical outcome than the consulting-practice precedents would suggest.
option3: The Board not only conducts an independent employment-context analysis but explicitly articulates the structural asymmetry between consulting-practice flexibility and statutory public employment constraints — documenting that the Section II.2.c specialist retention provision operates as a competence-gap remedy in consulting contexts but cannot serve the same function in a statutory oversight role where the oversight duty is personally non-delegable — thereby establishing clear precedent for future cases at the consulting/employment boundary.
role label: Board of Ethical Review (Ethics Adjudicator)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.161750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Education-Experience Competence Threshold — Engineer A County Surveyor Surveying and Highway Engineering
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board applied Section II.2.a's requirement that engineers undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved, finding that Engineer A possessed no apparent expertise in surveying or highway engineering.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting the county surveyor position because he lacked both the educational background and the practical experience in surveying and highway engineering required by NSPE Code Section II.2.a for the specific technical fields involved in the position's duties.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance
textreferences: Again, the position that Engineer A is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.851479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Education-Experience Competence Threshold — Engineer A Surveying Highway Engineering
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's background was solely in chemical engineering — no education or experience in surveying or highway engineering — yet the county surveyor position required oversight competence in precisely those domains.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A lacked both the educational foundation and the practical experience in surveying and highway engineering required to meet the competence threshold for the county surveyor position, and could not satisfy this threshold through general PE licensure in chemical engineering alone.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.846378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Surveyor Position
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Surveyor Position → NSPE BER Reviews Engineer A's Conduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite County Surveyor
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite Cross-Context Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to apply the principle — directly instantiated in BER Case 85-3 which addresses the county surveyor scenario — that an engineer may not ethically accept an oversight role whose primary function is oversight of technical work in domains where the engineer lacks the qualifications and experience to perform that work competently.
casecontext: The county surveyor case is the source scenario for BER Case 85-3; Engineer A's situation is the paradigm case for this precedent principle
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the county surveyor position despite the Case 85-3 precedent directly addressing this scenario
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.845841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Chemical PE Appointed as County Surveyor
type: SupervisoryPublicRoleDomainCompetenceMismatchState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment onward
affectedparties: County commissioners
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on county surveyor oversight
affectedparties: Surveyors and highway engineers whose work is overseen
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
stateclass: Supervisory Public Role Domain Competence Mismatch State
subject: Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor with chemical engineering background
terminatedby: Engineer A declining the position, resigning, or successfully supplementing domain competence for surveying and highway oversight
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
textreferences: duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
triggeringevent: County commissioners' appointment of Engineer A as county surveyor despite chemical-engineering-only background
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Limitation Recognition Escalation County Surveyor
type: CompetenceLimitationRecognitionandSupervisorEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, recognizing or having reason to recognize the competence gap between chemical engineering and the surveying/highway engineering domains of the county surveyor position, was obligated to surface this limitation rather than silently accept the appointment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competence Limitation Recognition and Supervisor Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, upon recognizing that the county surveyor duties (oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects) exceeded their competence in chemical engineering, to escalate this limitation to the county commissioners or other responsible authority rather than proceeding with acceptance of the position.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment offer and acceptance
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.845171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement County Surveyor Contrast
type: ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board referenced the consulting-firm specialist-retention obligation as a contrasting example to illustrate why the consulting-practice flexibility argument was unavailable to Engineer A as a statutory county surveyor appointee.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Consulting Engineering Firm (contrasting example)
obligationclass: Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: A consulting engineering firm retained to perform engineering and land surveying services that lacks expertise in land surveying is obligated to retain individuals with that expertise — illustrating the consulting-practice flexibility that is available to firms but not to statutory public officers like the county surveyor.
sourcetext: For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise
temporalscope: When a consulting firm is retained for services outside its competence
textreferences: Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently
textreferences: For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.849862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Consulting Practice Flexibility Non-Transferability County Surveyor
type: Consulting-PracticeWorkforceFlexibilityNon-TransferabilitytoStatutoryPublicEmploymentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical PE, accepted appointment as county surveyor — a statutory public position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — and could not invoke consulting-practice workforce flexibility arguments to justify the appointment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Consulting-Practice Workforce Flexibility Non-Transferability to Statutory Public Employment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the consulting-practice flexibility to engage subconsultants or restructure the workforce to fill competence gaps was not available to him as a statutory county surveyor appointee, and therefore could not serve as justification for accepting the county surveyor position despite lacking domain competence in surveying and highway engineering.
sourcetext: in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment and throughout occupancy of the position
textreferences: Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship. In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility
textreferences: in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.848317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Consulting vs. Employment Asymmetry Inapplicability
type: Consultingvs.EmploymentCompetenceRemediationAsymmetryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the Board's analysis of whether consulting-context precedents apply to Engineer A's situation
affectedparties: Board evaluating the case
affectedparties: County government
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
stateclass: Consulting vs. Employment Competence Remediation Asymmetry State
subject: The Board's analysis distinguishing BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 (consulting context) from Engineer A's employment context
terminatedby: Board's conclusion that consulting-context flexibility mechanisms are unavailable in Engineer A's employment role
textreferences: Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel
textreferences: in the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility
textreferences: in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible
textreferences: there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
triggeringevent: Attempt to apply consulting-context ethics precedents (BER 71-2, 78-5) to Engineer A's fixed public employment role as county surveyor
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.842603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
type: Out-of-CompetencePublicSectorAppointeeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (PE)', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'position_accepted': 'County Surveyor', 'position_duties': 'Oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects (no actual document preparation)'}
caseinvolvement: A PE with background solely in chemical engineering who accepted appointment as county surveyor, a position whose duties include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — domains outside Engineer A's area of competence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:42.326079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:42.326079+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Commissioners'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'General Public / County Residents'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A County Surveyor Inescapable Ethical Impermissibility
type: NoEthicalCourseofActionAvailableinIncompetentFixedRoleState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A accepted or considered accepting the county surveyor position through the Board's evaluation
affectedparties: County government
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on competent surveying oversight
affectedparties: Qualified surveyors whose work would be overseen
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: we do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
stateclass: No Ethical Course of Action Available in Incompetent Fixed Role State
subject: Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case — the Board concludes no ethical course of action is available
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
textreferences: we do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
triggeringevent: Engineer A (chemical engineer) accepting appointment as county surveyor with duties requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.842425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency County Surveyor
type: Cross-DisciplinePELicenseNon-SufficiencyforStructuralAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Local ordinance required a PE for the county surveyor position; Engineer A's PE license satisfied the legal credential requirement but not the ethical competence requirement for the technical domains involved.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency for Structural Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that holding a PE license in chemical engineering did not confer competence in surveying or highway engineering, and therefore did not ethically authorize acceptance of the county surveyor position whose duties required oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
sourcetext: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
temporalscope: Before and at the time of accepting the appointment
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.849702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency County Surveyor Recognition
type: Cross-DisciplinePELicenseCountySurveyorNon-SufficiencyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cross-Discipline PE License County Surveyor Non-Sufficiency Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that their PE license in chemical engineering, while satisfying the ordinance's credential requirement, did not confer the substantive competence in surveying and highway engineering required to ethically fulfill the county surveyor role.
casecontext: The county ordinance required a PE, and Engineer A held a PE license, but the license was in chemical engineering — a discipline entirely unrelated to the surveying and highway engineering duties of the position
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Apparent reliance on PE licensure as sufficient qualification for the county surveyor appointment without recognizing the domain competence gap
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.839460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition County Surveyor
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and articulate the boundary between their established domain of professional competence (chemical engineering) and the unrelated technical fields required by the county surveyor position (surveying, highway engineering), and to correctly classify the appointment as falling outside their competence boundary.
casecontext: Engineer A's sole background in chemical engineering did not overlap with the surveying and highway engineering domains required for meaningful oversight as county surveyor
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to correctly classify the county surveyor duties as outside the boundary of chemical engineering competence
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.839756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Verification County Surveyor Acceptance
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceVerificationBeforeAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's sole background was in chemical engineering; the county surveyor position required oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects, which are distinct technical domains.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to verify, before accepting the county surveyor appointment, that their competence — established by education and experience in the specific technical fields of surveying and highway engineering — was sufficient to perform the oversight duties of the position, and to decline upon recognizing that chemical engineering background did not provide that competence.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: Prior to accepting the appointment
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.844529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Context Competence Constraint — No Remediation Pathway
type: EmploymentContextCompetenceConstraintState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position through the Board's evaluation
affectedparties: County government
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight
stateclass: Employment Context Competence Constraint State
subject: Engineer A's fixed public employment role as county surveyor, which provides no structural mechanism to subcontract, hire specialists, or restructure duties to supply the missing surveying competence
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case
textreferences: in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight
textreferences: there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepting a fixed statutory public employment role with no authority to subcontract or restructure duties to compensate for domain incompetence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.842953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility County Surveyor
type: EmploymentvsConsultingCompetenceFlexibilityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that the consulting-practice flexibility to remediate competence gaps through subconsultants, joint ventures, or additional hires was unavailable in the statutory employment context of the county surveyor position, making his acceptance of the role ethically impermissible
casecontext: Engineer A's background was in consulting-context engineering; the county surveyor position was a statutory employment role with non-delegable oversight duties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the county surveyor appointment without recognizing that the structural flexibility available in consulting practice could not be transferred to a statutory public employment role
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained.
textreferences: However, in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
textreferences: In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Ethics Exceeds Legal Permissibility County Surveyor PE License
type: Ethics-Exceeds-Legal-PermissibilityCountySurveyorAppointmentComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A held a PE license in chemical engineering, satisfying the county ordinance's legal requirement for the county surveyor position, but lacked domain competence in surveying and highway engineering required by the NSPE Code's higher ethical standard.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Ethics-Exceeds-Legal-Permissibility County Surveyor Appointment Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that holding a PE license — which satisfied the county ordinance's legal credential requirement for the county surveyor position — did not exhaust his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, which required him to also possess domain-specific competence in surveying and highway engineering, and therefore to decline the appointment despite its legal permissibility.
sourcetext: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: For example, it may be legal for an engineer to exercise his First Amendment rights by making strong and critical statements with regard to another individual or with respect to a particular public policy issue; however, it is an entirely different question as to whether such conduct would be ethical under those circumstances
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.849182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Formal Credential Without Substantive Domain Competence — Employment Instance
type: FormalCredentialComplianceWithoutSubstantiveDomainCompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor through the Board's evaluation
affectedparties: County government
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law
stateclass: Formal Credential Compliance Without Substantive Domain Competence State
subject: Engineer A holding a valid PE license satisfying the statutory credential requirement for county surveyor while lacking any surveying or highway engineering expertise
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law
triggeringevent: Engineer A's PE license satisfying the statutory credential requirement for county surveyor appointment despite his expertise being limited to chemical engineering
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.839126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Holds PE License
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Inescapable Ethical Violation County Surveyor Position
type: InescapableEthicalViolationAcceptanceProhibitionUponStructurallyImpossibleComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board found that no available course of action available to Engineer A as county surveyor could bring him into compliance with Section II.2.b, because his lack of domain competence in surveying and highway engineering made every path ethically impermissible.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Inescapable Ethical Violation Acceptance Prohibition Upon Structurally Impossible Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his acceptance of the county surveyor position created a structurally impossible compliance scenario in which every available course of action — performing oversight directly, delegating to qualified staff, or invoking Section II.2.c — resulted in an ethical violation, and therefore was obligated to decline or resign from the position.
sourcetext: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.848457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Institutional Role Non-Expansion Competence County Surveyor
type: InstitutionalRoleNon-ExpansionofCompetenceScopeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor conferred administrative authority over surveying and highway engineering oversight, but did not confer the technical competence in those domains that Engineer A lacked.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Scope Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that appointment to the county surveyor role did not expand their professional competence into surveying or highway engineering, and that the administrative authority and title of the position could not substitute for the domain-specific education and experience required to meaningfully oversee surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: Upon and after accepting the appointment
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.844824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap County Surveyor
type: IrreconcilableEmploymentRoleCompetenceGapDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that the county surveyor position required substantive competence in surveying and highway engineering that he did not possess, and that no organizational remedy was available in the employment context to remediate this gap, making declination the only ethical option
casecontext: Engineer A accepted appointment as county surveyor with background solely in chemical engineering, a domain entirely unrelated to the position's oversight duties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the county surveyor appointment despite having no background in surveying or highway engineering and no available mechanism to remediate the competence gap in a statutory employment role
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: However, in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
textreferences: However, in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination County Surveyor
type: IrreconcilableEmploymentRoleCompetenceGapDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess the capability to recognize that the county surveyor role required substantive competence in surveying and highway engineering that they did not possess, and that the public employment context provided no practical mechanism (subconsultant, joint venture) to remediate this gap, making acceptance of the role ethically impermissible.
casecontext: Unlike a consulting firm that could engage subconsultants, a county surveyor appointee cannot delegate the oversight responsibilities that define the role
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the county surveyor appointment despite an irreconcilable competence gap in a public employment context where gap remediation was not feasible
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.845991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Lacks Surveying Competence
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Oversight Competence Non-Delegability
type: OversightRoleSubstantiveCompetenceNon-DelegableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the Board's evaluation of whether the 'others will do the technical work' argument provides an ethical pathway for Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on competent oversight
affectedparties: Qualified subordinates who would prepare documents
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It could be stated that Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals
stateclass: Oversight Role Substantive Competence Non-Delegable State
subject: The argument that Engineer A's oversight role could be satisfied by having qualified subordinates prepare and approve technical documents
terminatedby: Board's rejection of the administrative-reframing argument and affirmation that oversight requires substantive domain competence
textreferences: It could be stated that Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals
textreferences: We are convinced that neither is this the intent of the Code provisions nor is this what is commonly understood to be the proper oversight role of a county surveyor
textreferences: at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position
textreferences: we fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job
triggeringevent: Consideration of whether Engineer A could serve as county surveyor by relying on qualified subordinates to prepare and approve surveying documents while he provided administrative oversight
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.842779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Oversight Role Domain Competence Prerequisite County Surveyor
type: Oversight-OnlyRoleCompetenceNon-ExemptionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county surveyor position was described as involving oversight only, without actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents; Engineer A may have viewed this as reducing the competence threshold, but effective oversight still requires domain knowledge.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Oversight-Only Role Competence Non-Exemption Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the county surveyor position's explicit limitation to oversight (no direct document preparation) did not reduce the competence prerequisite, because meaningful oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects requires domain competence in those fields, and therefore to decline the position.
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
temporalscope: At the time of evaluating and accepting the appointment
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.849527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A PE License Legal Minimum Ethics Higher Standard County Surveyor
type: PELicenseLegalMinimumvsEthicsCodeHigherStandardSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that holding a PE license satisfied only the legal credential requirement of the county ordinance, and that professional ethics required substantive domain competence in surveying and highway engineering beyond mere licensure
casecontext: Engineer A held a PE license satisfying the ordinance credential requirement but lacked competence in surveying and highway engineering required by the position's duties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the county surveyor appointment on the basis of PE licensure alone, without recognizing the higher ethical standard requiring domain-specific competence
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment County Surveyor
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess and exercise the capability to conduct an honest, rigorous self-assessment of their competence in surveying and highway engineering before accepting the county surveyor appointment, recognizing that their background was solely in chemical engineering.
casecontext: Engineer A (chemical PE) accepted appointment as county surveyor whose duties include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — domains outside chemical engineering
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of the county surveyor position without apparent self-assessment of domain competence gap
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:20.311117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance County Surveyor
type: PublicSectorOut-of-CompetenceAppointmentAcceptanceProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a PE with background solely in chemical engineering, accepted appointment as county surveyor, a statutory public position requiring oversight of surveying and highway engineering work for which he possessed no relevant education, training, or experience.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to decline acceptance of the county surveyor appointment because the position's duties — oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — fell substantially outside his domain of competence as a chemical engineer, even though the appointment was made by a legitimate authority and the position required only oversight rather than direct preparation of engineering documents.
sourcetext: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: Again, the position that Engineer A is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.849381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
type: PublicSectorOut-of-CompetenceAppointmentAcceptanceProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: County commissioners appointed Engineer A (chemical PE) as county surveyor after the first appointee was disqualified for lacking a PE license; the county surveyor position requires oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:45:06.151500+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to decline the county surveyor appointment because the position's duties — oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — fell substantially outside Engineer A's domain of competence, which was confined to chemical engineering, notwithstanding that Engineer A held a valid PE license satisfying the ordinance's credential requirement.
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: At the time the appointment was offered and accepted
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Section II.2.c Misapplication County Surveyor
type: SectionII.2.cSpecialistRetentionProvisionEmployment-ContextInapplicabilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that Section II.2.c could not serve as an independent ethical pathway to justify accepting the county surveyor position, and that it must be read in context of the preceding competence provisions
casecontext: Engineer A accepted the county surveyor appointment, apparently without recognizing that Section II.2.c specialist retention cannot override the foundational competence obligation in a statutory employment role
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Implicit reliance on the possibility that retaining qualified specialists could satisfy the county surveyor's oversight duties, without recognizing that this argument fails in the employment context
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
textreferences: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.851310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Misapplication County Surveyor
type: SectionII.2.cSpecialistRetentionProvisionCompetence-Context-ConstrainedReadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board rejected the argument that Section II.2.c provided an ethical avenue for Engineer A to serve as county surveyor by relying on qualified surveyors to prepare the technical documents while he provided administrative oversight.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Competence-Context-Constrained Reading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Section II.2.c could not be invoked as an independent ethical pathway to justify accepting the county surveyor position, because Section II.2.c must be read in the context of the preceding competence provisions and does not permit an engineer to accept a position for which they lack baseline domain competence simply by pointing to qualified specialists who will perform the technical work.
sourcetext: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment and in any subsequent ethical analysis of the appointment
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence
textreferences: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor
textreferences: Second, at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.848601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Statutory Oversight Non-Delegability County Surveyor
type: StatutoryPublicOversightRoleNon-DelegablePersonalCompetencePrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board rejected the argument that Engineer A's oversight-only role (not requiring personal preparation or approval of engineering documents) reduced the competence prerequisite, finding that effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects required Engineer A to personally possess substantive background and experience in those domains.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:52:16.972206+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Statutory Public Oversight Role Non-Delegable Personal Competence Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the county surveyor's oversight duties were personally non-delegable — that the existence of qualified surveyors preparing the technical documents did not cure his own competence deficit for purposes of the oversight function — and therefore to decline the appointment.
sourcetext: It could be stated that Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals, and that Engineer A's role would be to oversee those documents and reports
temporalscope: Throughout occupancy of the county surveyor position
textreferences: It could be stated that Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals, and that Engineer A's role would be to oversee those documents and reports
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements
textreferences: We are convinced that neither is this the intent of the Code provisions nor is this what is commonly understood to be the proper oversight role of a county surveyor
textreferences: We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.848754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Structurally Impossible Compliance County Surveyor
type: StructurallyImpossibleComplianceEthicalDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structurally Impossible Compliance Ethical Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked — and was obligated to exercise — the capability to recognize that accepting the county surveyor position created a structurally impossible compliance scenario in which every available course of action would result in unethical conduct, and therefore to decline the appointment
casecontext: Engineer A accepted the county surveyor appointment despite having no background in surveying or highway engineering, creating an inescapable ethical violation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize that no course of action as county surveyor could satisfy Section II.2.b given his chemical engineering background and the surveying/highway oversight duties of the position
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:42.301065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
textreferences: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.848890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisory Role Domain Incompetence — County Surveyor
type: SupervisoryRoleDomainIncompetenceAcceptanceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment through the Board's evaluation
affectedparties: County government
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on competent surveying oversight
concept category: State
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:40:59.148876+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
stateclass: Supervisory Role Domain Incompetence Acceptance State
subject: Engineer A accepting the county surveyor role requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements despite having no background in surveying or highway engineering
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
textreferences: the job responsibilities do include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements. Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements
triggeringevent: Engineer A (chemical engineer) accepting appointment as county surveyor with statutory oversight duties in surveying and highway improvement domains
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.839286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Engineer A's acceptance of county surveyor position before NSPE Board ethical review of Engineer A's conduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to County Surveyor Appointment
type: EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Commissioners Appointing Authority
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE Code of Ethics imposed a higher obligation on Engineer A than the state statutory requirement: while the statute permitted appointment of any PE, the Code required that the appointee possess relevant disciplinary competence in surveying and highway engineering.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Legal permissibility of the appointment — grounded in Engineer A's PE licensure — did not exhaust the ethical analysis; the Code's competence provisions imposed an independent and more demanding standard that the legal credential alone could not satisfy.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
sourcetext: professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
tensionresolution: No tension to resolve — the principle operates to extend the ethical obligation beyond the legal floor, and the Board applied it straightforwardly to find that legal compliance did not constitute ethical compliance.
textreferences: For example, it may be legal for an engineer to exercise his First Amendment rights by making strong and critical statements with regard to another individual or with respect to a particular public policy issue; however, it is an entirely different question as to whether such conduct would be ethical under those circumstances.
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.847669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Ethics Code Internal Cross-Provision Integration Applied to Section II.2.b and II.2.c
type: EthicsCodeInternalCross-ProvisionIntegrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition in Structurally Impossible Compliance Scenarios
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board required that Section II.2.c. (specialist retention provision) be read in the context of the preceding competence provisions of Section II.2., rather than as a standalone escape route — finding that the specialist-retention provision cannot be invoked to circumvent the fundamental competence obligation established by the introductory language and Section II.2.a.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The internal coherence of the Code required that its provisions be read as an integrated whole, such that a later provision permitting specialist retention could not be used to nullify the earlier provisions establishing the fundamental obligation to practice within one's competence.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Ethics Code Internal Cross-Provision Integration Obligation
sourcetext: Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
tensionresolution: The cross-provision integration obligation resolved the apparent tension between Section II.2.c. (which might seem to permit Engineer A to proceed by retaining specialists) and Section II.2.a. and II.2.b. (which require competence in the specific technical fields involved) — by requiring the former to be read in light of the latter.
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
textreferences: In Section II.2., the introductory section makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.848123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

First Amendment Legal Analogy
type: FirstAmendmentProfessionalCodeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: U.S. Constitutional Law
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: First Amendment Rights as Ethical Contrast Example
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
sourcetext: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
textreferences: For example, it may be legal for an engineer to exercise his First Amendment rights by making strong and critical statements with regard to another individual or with respect to a particular public policy issue; however, it is an entirely different question as to whether such conduct would be ethical under those circumstances.
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Invoked by the Board as an analogical contrast to illustrate that legal permissibility does not equal ethical permissibility — just as an engineer may legally exercise First Amendment rights in ways that are nonetheless unethical, Engineer A may legally qualify for the county surveyor position while being ethically prohibited from accepting it
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.841723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

First Appointee Removed as Unqualified
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.837947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

First Unqualified County Surveyor Appointee
type: UnqualifiedPublicPositionAppointee
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Not a PE', 'position': 'County Surveyor (first appointee)', 'outcome': 'Deemed unqualified and removed'}
caseinvolvement: The initial appointee to the county surveyor position who lacked PE licensure as required by local ordinance and was consequently deemed unqualified to continue.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:42.326079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:42.326079+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Commissioners Appointing Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'replaced_by', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unqualified Public Position Appointee
sourcetext: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
textreferences: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Fixed Public Employment Competence Remediation Structural Impossibility — Engineer A County Surveyor
type: FixedPublicEmploymentCompetenceRemediationStructuralImpossibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board concluded that there was no way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b under the facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Fixed Public Employment Competence Remediation Structural Impossibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position created a structurally impossible compliance scenario in which every available course of action resulted in unethical conduct, because the fixed public employment context foreclosed all consulting-style competence remediation pathways and the oversight duties were personally non-delegable.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.b; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
temporalscope: From the moment of appointment acceptance through the duration of employment as county surveyor
textreferences: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

General PE Licensure Non-Authorization for County Surveyor Domain Practice — Engineer A
type: GeneralPELicensureUniversalPracticeNon-AuthorizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board held that it would not be consistent with the Code for Engineer A to act as county surveyor when his expertise was limited to chemical engineering, establishing that general PE licensure does not authorize practice in all engineering domains.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's general PE license in chemical engineering did not authorize him to accept or perform the county surveyor role, whose core duties required competence in surveying and highway engineering — domains in which Engineer A possessed no apparent expertise.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout the duration of employment
textreferences: Again, the position that Engineer A is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.851143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

General PE Licensure Non-Authorization — Engineer A Chemical PE County Surveyor
type: GeneralPELicensureUniversalPracticeNon-AuthorizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical PE, accepted appointment as county surveyor with duties including oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — domains entirely outside chemical engineering.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's PE licensure in chemical engineering did not authorize practice in or oversight of surveying and highway engineering, the core technical domains of the county surveyor position, and therefore did not constitute sufficient qualification for accepting the appointment.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout tenure as county surveyor
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.845353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Governmental Appointing Authority Domain Competence Verification — County Commissioners Engineer A
type: GovernmentalAppointingAuthorityDomainCompetenceVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: County commissioners appointed Engineer A — a chemical PE with no surveying or highway engineering background — to the county surveyor position after verifying only that Engineer A held a PE license, without verifying domain competence for the position's actual duties.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: County commissioners
constraintclass: Governmental Appointing Authority Domain Competence Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: The county commissioners were constrained to verify not only that Engineer A held a PE license (satisfying the ordinance's literal credential requirement) but also that Engineer A possessed substantive domain competence in surveying and highway engineering before appointing Engineer A to the county surveyor position; appointment based solely on PE credential compliance without domain competence verification violated this constraint.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; professional ethics principles governing public appointments
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: At the time of the appointment decision
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.846681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.159854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.159901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.159935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

II.2.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.159968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition Applied to Engineer A's County Surveyor Situation
type: InescapableEthicalViolationRecognitioninStructurallyImpossibleComplianceScenarios
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
balancingwith: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board found that Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment created a situation in which every available course of action — performing oversight without competence, delegating oversight entirely, or refusing to perform duties — would independently constitute an ethical violation, foreclosing any post-hoc rationalization through Section II.2.c.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The structural impossibility of ethical compliance within the role, once accepted, confirmed that the acceptance itself was the ethical violation — and that apparent code escape routes (such as the specialist-retention provision) could not rescue the situation.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition in Structurally Impossible Compliance Scenarios
sourcetext: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the apparent availability of Section II.2.c. as an escape route by finding that it must be read in context of the preceding competence provisions, and that no reading of the Code could make Engineer A's performance of the county surveyor role ethically permissible.
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
textreferences: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
textreferences: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.836546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Institutional Administrative Role Competence Non-Expansion — County Surveyor Appointment
type: InstitutionalAdministrativeRoleCompetenceNon-ExpansionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted a governmental appointment to a technical oversight role in a domain (surveying, highway engineering) entirely outside their chemical engineering background, with the appointment itself conferring no new technical competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Institutional Administrative Role Competence Non-Expansion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's appointment to the county surveyor position did not expand, confer, or imply competence in surveying or highway engineering; the institutional title and authority of the county surveyor role could not substitute for substantive domain competence that Engineer A did not possess.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: Throughout tenure as county surveyor
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position.
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.845684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Institutional Role Non-Expansion Invoked by County Surveyor Appointment
type: InstitutionalRoleNon-ExpansionofTechnicalCompetenceScope
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
balancingwith: Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor did not expand his professional competence to encompass surveying or highway engineering; the administrative assignment of the role cannot substitute for the technical knowledge required to discharge its oversight duties
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The county surveyor role's oversight responsibilities for surveying reports and highway projects require at minimum threshold competence in those domains; appointment by county commissioners cannot create that competence
invokedby: County Commissioners Appointing Authority
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
tensionresolution: The institutional assignment must yield to the competence requirement; Engineer A should have declined the appointment or ensured qualified specialists were retained to perform the substantive technical review
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.843485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Applied to County Surveyor Position
type: InstitutionalRoleNon-ExpansionofTechnicalCompetenceScope
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor — a statutory institutional role — did not expand his professional competence to encompass surveying and highway engineering; the administrative scope of the county surveyor position did not determine the scope of Engineer A's actual technical capabilities.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board rejected the implicit argument that appointment to the county surveyor role conferred sufficient authority to perform its oversight functions; institutional assignment cannot substitute for genuine disciplinary competence.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
sourcetext: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
tensionresolution: The principle operates consistently with the appointment prohibition — both converge on the conclusion that Engineer A's acceptance was ethically impermissible.
textreferences: Again, the position that Engineer A is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise.
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.847826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked by Specialist Retention Contrast
type: InterdisciplinaryCompetenceThresholdforSpecializedReferral
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
balancingwith: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
balancingwith: Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's reference to a consulting firm retaining specialists illustrates the ethically permissible alternative: when an engineer's competence does not cover all aspects of a project, the engineer must retain or recommend specialists — a model Engineer A could have proposed to the county commissioners as a condition of acceptance
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The specialist-retention model available to consulting firms demonstrates that competence gaps can be ethically bridged through referral; Engineer A's failure to propose or implement such a model compounds the ethical violation of accepting the appointment
invokedby: Consulting Engineering Firm Retaining Specialists
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
tensionresolution: While specialist retention can bridge competence gaps in consulting contexts, it does not fully resolve the ethical problem in a statutory public appointment context where the PE is personally responsible for the oversight function — but it represents a partial mitigation that Engineer A failed to pursue
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.844137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Legal Permissibility Non-Equivalence to Ethical Permissibility — Engineer A PE License County Surveyor
type: EthicsCodeHigherStandardThanLegalMinimumCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly held that while Engineer A met the legal requirements for the position (PE license), professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law, using the First Amendment analogy to illustrate that legal permissibility and ethical permissibility are distinct standards.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's satisfaction of the county ordinance's legal credential requirement (PE licensure) did not establish that his acceptance of the county surveyor position was ethically permissible under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance
textreferences: For example, it may be legal for an engineer to exercise his First Amendment rights by making strong and critical statements with regard to another individual or with respect to a particular public policy issue; however, it is an entirely different question as to whether such conduct would be ethical under those circumstances.
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Applied to County Surveyor Public Trust
type: Licensure-GroundedPublicDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's PE license created a reciprocal public duty to exercise licensed authority consistently with the interests of the county's citizenry — a duty that was violated when Engineer A accepted a statutory public position whose oversight responsibilities he lacked the competence to discharge, thereby defeating the public protection function of the county surveyor role.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public trust dimension of PE licensure amplified the ethical obligation beyond mere competence compliance — accepting a statutory public oversight role without relevant competence was not merely a personal professional failure but a breach of the public trust that the license itself imposes.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
sourcetext: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
tensionresolution: No tension — the licensure-grounded public duty principle reinforces the competence obligation in the public statutory context.
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
textreferences: The Board notes that its evaluation of the facts of this case is limited to an interpretation of the NSPE Code of Ethics and in no way constitutes an interpretation of any state engineering or surveying registration law.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.847977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Invoked by County Ordinance PE Requirement
type: Licensure-GroundedPublicDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
balancingwith: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The county ordinance requiring a PE for the county surveyor position reflects a public trust rationale: the PE credential is meant to ensure competent technical oversight of surveying and highway work; appointing a PE with no relevant domain expertise defeats this public protection purpose
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The PE license requirement in the ordinance is not merely a formal credential check but a substantive public protection mechanism; Engineer A's acceptance of the role while lacking relevant competence renders the ordinance's public protection purpose illusory
invokedby: County Commissioners Appointing Authority
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
sourcetext: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E. The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position.
tensionresolution: The legal satisfaction of the ordinance's PE requirement does not satisfy the ethical obligation; the public duty grounded in licensure requires that the appointed PE actually possess the competence the ordinance was designed to ensure
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.843960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading — Section II.2 County Surveyor Context
type: MutuallyDependentCodeProvisionIntegratedReadingSealingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly held that Section II.2.c must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence, rejecting the argument that II.2.c could independently authorize Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor role.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Sealing Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained to read Section II.2.c (specialist retention provision) in the context of the preceding competence provisions of Section II.2 (II.2.a and II.2.b), prohibiting any interpretation that treats II.2.c in isolation as an independent ethical pathway to justify accepting an out-of-competence public employment position.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical analysis of the county surveyor case
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.851628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

NSPE BER Reviews Engineer A's Conduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.2 — Competence Obligation
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Subsections (a, b, c)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: In Section II.2., the introductory section makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence.
textreferences: In Section II.2., the introductory section makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence.
textreferences: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Core Code provisions analyzed to determine whether Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor role is ethical given his chemical engineering background and lack of surveying expertise
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:55.804284+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The Board notes that its evaluation of the facts of this case is limited to an interpretation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Because of the absence of a case relating to the instant facts, we must look to the Code of Ethics and apply its language to the facts at hand.
textreferences: The Board notes that its evaluation of the facts of this case is limited to an interpretation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Primary normative authority for evaluating whether Engineer A may ethically accept the county surveyor position despite lacking surveying expertise; Board explicitly limits its analysis to this Code
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Competence Provisions
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Provides the primary normative framework for evaluating whether Engineer A, a chemical engineer, may ethically accept and serve in a county surveyor role requiring oversight of surveying and highway improvement projects outside his area of expertise
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Invoked by Engineer A
type: Out-of-CompetencePublicAppointmentAcceptanceProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
balancingwith: Civic duty to fill necessary public positions
balancingwith: Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment — a statutory public position whose technical duties (oversight of surveying and highway work) fall entirely outside his chemical engineering background — constitutes an ethical violation at the moment of acceptance
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical obligation to practice only within one's area of competence applies with full force to statutory public appointments; Engineer A should have declined the appointment and advised the county commissioners to seek a candidate with surveying or civil engineering background
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. Engineer A accepted the position.
tensionresolution: The absence of other qualified candidates and the appointing authority's decision do not override the engineer's personal ethical obligation to decline an appointment for which he lacks the requisite competence; the public protection purpose of the statutory PE requirement is defeated by appointing a PE with no relevant domain expertise
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.843125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Applied to County Surveyor Oversight Duties
type: Oversight-CompetenceMinimumThresholdPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Statutory Public Role Oversight Duty Personal Non-Delegability Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board established that meaningful oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects requires the county surveyor to possess at minimum a substantive degree of background and experience in surveying and highway engineering — even though the role did not require personal preparation or approval of engineering documents.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The oversight function is not discharged by nominal incumbency; the county surveyor must possess sufficient competence to evaluate, question, and take responsibility for the surveying reports and highway projects being overseen — a threshold Engineer A could not meet with a chemical engineering background.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Principle
sourcetext: at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position.
tensionresolution: No tension — both principles reinforce the conclusion that Engineer A lacked the minimum competence to perform meaningful oversight.
textreferences: Second, at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position.
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
textreferences: We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.836373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Invoked by County Surveyor Oversight Duties
type: Oversight-CompetenceMinimumThresholdPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
balancingwith: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The county surveyor role requires oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects; meaningful oversight of such work requires at minimum threshold competence in surveying and civil/highway engineering — competence Engineer A lacks entirely as a chemical PE
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The fact that the role does not require preparation of documents does not eliminate the competence requirement; oversight without comprehension provides no public protection and is ethically equivalent to no oversight
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Principle
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
tensionresolution: The oversight-only character of the role does not mitigate the ethical problem; it may reduce the competence threshold required, but it does not eliminate it — Engineer A's complete absence of background in surveying and highway engineering means he cannot discharge even a threshold oversight function
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.843648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Oversight Role Judgment and Discretion Domain Competence Prerequisite — Engineer A County Surveyor
type: OversightRoleSubstantiveDomainBackgroundMinimumThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board held that the county surveyor's oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements is important in protecting the public interest and must be performed by one with expertise and background in those areas, and that Engineer A's lack of any such background meant he could not properly exercise the required judgment and discretion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting the county surveyor position because, at a bare minimum, one serving in the role of county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in surveying and highway engineering in order to properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout the duration of employment
textreferences: Second, at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position.
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
textreferences: We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background — Engineer A County Surveyor Oversight Duties
type: OversightRoleSubstantiveDomainBackgroundMinimumThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county surveyor position was framed as oversight-only (no direct document preparation), but Engineer A had no background in surveying or highway engineering, making meaningful oversight impossible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting the county surveyor role because the position's oversight duties — review and approval of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — required at minimum some substantive background in surveying and highway engineering, which Engineer A entirely lacked, and the oversight-only framing of the role did not eliminate this competence prerequisite.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:46:33.872826+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 85-3; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout tenure
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.845508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

PE-License-Non-Equivalence Invoked Against Engineer A County Surveyor Appointment
type: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
balancingwith: Legal permissibility of appointment
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's PE license in chemical engineering satisfied the legal credential requirement for the county surveyor appointment but did not authorize competent practice in surveying or highway engineering — the disciplines actually required by the position's duties.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the PE license is a credential of professional standing that met the statutory appointment requirement, but the ethical obligation to practice only within one's area of competence independently prohibited Engineer A from accepting the appointment — because licensure status alone cannot substitute for the surveying and highway engineering expertise the role required.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
sourcetext: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by applying the principle that professional ethics requires engineers to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law — the legal sufficiency of the PE credential did not discharge the ethical obligation to possess relevant disciplinary competence.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.847509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

PE License Non-Equivalence Invoked by Engineer A Appointment
type: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
balancingwith: Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's PE license satisfied the legal credential requirement of the county ordinance but did not confer competence in surveying or highway engineering — the domains actually required by the county surveyor role
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The PE license is a credential of professional standing, not a grant of unlimited technical scope; Engineer A's chemical engineering background does not qualify him to oversee surveying reports and highway improvement projects
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. Engineer A accepted the position.
tensionresolution: The legal permissibility of the appointment (PE license satisfies ordinance) does not resolve the ethical impermissibility of accepting a role requiring competence one does not possess; ethics requires going beyond the legal minimum
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.843301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

PE Ordinance Requirement Formally Satisfied Without Domain Alignment
type: FormalCredentialComplianceWithoutSubstantiveDomainCompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A accepts the appointment through any disclosure or resignation
affectedparties: County commissioners
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public served by county surveyor function
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:11.298612+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
stateclass: Formal Credential Compliance Without Substantive Domain Competence State
subject: Engineer A's PE credential satisfying the county ordinance requirement while domain expertise is misaligned
terminatedby: Disclosure to commissioners of domain limitation, resignation, or competence remediation
textreferences: Engineer A accepted the position
textreferences: county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified
textreferences: local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
triggeringevent: County ordinance requiring PE credential applied to Engineer A whose PE is in chemical engineering, not surveying or civil/highway engineering
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.841198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Become Applicable
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.838122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Become Applicable → NSPE BER Reviews Engineer A's Conduct (informed by established ethical standards)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Prior Case Precedent Contextual Transposition Applied to BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5
type: PriorCasePrecedentContextualTranspositionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Consulting Engineering Firm Retaining Specialists
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
balancingwith: Precedent consistency and predictability
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board explicitly acknowledged that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 arose in consulting practice contexts quite dissimilar to the instant employment context, assessed which elements of those precedents were transferable, and calibrated their authority accordingly — extracting the underlying competence principle while declining to apply the consulting-practice flexibility conclusions.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Board's explicit acknowledgment of contextual dissimilarity, combined with its careful extraction of the transferable principle (engineers must practice within competence) from the non-transferable conclusion (consulting firms may retain specialists to cure gaps), exemplifies the obligation to transpose precedent with intellectual honesty about its limits.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Prior Case Precedent Contextual Transposition Obligation
sourcetext: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension between precedent authority and contextual difference by applying the underlying principle while explicitly distinguishing the consulting-practice conclusions — a transparent and intellectually honest approach to precedent transposition.
textreferences: Because of the absence of a case relating to the instant facts, we must look to the Code of Ethics and apply its language to the facts at hand.
textreferences: Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
textreferences: While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.836898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Professional Competence Standard - Disciplinary Scope
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Practice Within Areas of Competence
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether to accept the appointment; NSPE BER in assessing ethical propriety
usedincontext: Directly applicable to the central ethical question: whether Engineer A's P.E. licensure in chemical engineering provides sufficient competence to oversee surveying reports and highway improvement projects, or whether accepting the role constitutes practice outside his area of demonstrated expertise
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.840375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount — County Surveyor Oversight Competence Requirement
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board grounded the competence requirement for the county surveyor oversight role in the public interest, holding that such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the relevant areas.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to decline the county surveyor position, because the oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in those areas.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout the duration of employment
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.852233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Statutory PE Requirement Purpose
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
balancingwith: Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
balancingwith: PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The county ordinance's PE requirement for the county surveyor position exists to protect the public through competent technical oversight of surveying and highway work; Engineer A's appointment with only chemical engineering background undermines this public welfare protection
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare is paramount in engineering ethics; the public relies on the county surveyor to provide competent oversight of work affecting public infrastructure and safety — a reliance that is defeated when the overseer lacks domain competence
invokedby: County Commissioners Appointing Authority
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
tensionresolution: Public welfare requires not merely formal compliance with the PE credential requirement but substantive competence in the domains being overseen; the paramount public welfare obligation supports declining the appointment
textreferences: A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.844309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.161031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to accept the position of county surveyor?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A have an independent ethical obligation to proactively disclose to the county commissioners that his chemical engineering background was outside the domain of surveying and highway improvement oversight before accepting the appointment, rather than relying on the commissioners to make that determination?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Did the county commissioners bear any independent ethical or institutional responsibility for verifying that the appointed PE possessed domain-specific competence in surveying and highway engineering, and does their failure to do so diminish or share Engineer A's ethical culpability?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Is there a meaningful ethical distinction between a situation where no qualified PE is available to fill the county surveyor position and one where a qualified PE is available but not appointed, and should the availability of alternatives affect the ethical analysis of Engineer A's acceptance?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Could Engineer A have ethically accepted the position on a temporary or interim basis while the county sought a domain-qualified PE, and if so, what conditions would have needed to be in place to make such an arrangement ethically permissible?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle that a PE license grounds a public duty to serve the public interest conflict with the principle that a PE license is not equivalent to domain-specific competence, when a county ordinance requires a PE for a public role and no domain-qualified PE is willing to serve?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle that ethics demands a higher standard than legal minimum conflict with the principle of public welfare paramount when satisfying the legal minimum by appointing any PE — even an out-of-domain one — may produce better public outcomes than leaving the county surveyor position vacant or filled by a non-PE?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle that oversight roles require a minimum competence threshold conflict with the principle that institutional roles cannot expand an engineer's competence, when the case facts specify that the county surveyor's duties involve only oversight and not the actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle permitting interdisciplinary coordination through specialist retention under Section II.2.c conflict with the principle of statutory oversight non-delegability, and how should the Board determine which principle governs when an engineer in a fixed public employment role attempts to rely on subordinate specialists to compensate for domain incompetence?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty to practice only within areas of competence, and does holding a PE license in one discipline create a categorical obligation to decline appointments in unrelated disciplines regardless of the administrative nature of the role?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the actual harm potential of Engineer A's oversight role — given that he would not prepare or sign engineering or surveying documents — outweigh the public benefit of having a credentialed PE in the position rather than leaving it filled by an unqualified appointee?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual honesty by accepting a position whose oversight duties required domain knowledge he demonstrably lacked, and does the acceptance itself reflect a failure of the virtue of professional humility?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's internal integration of Sections II.2.b and II.2.c create a mutually reinforcing duty structure such that the prohibition on signing out-of-competence documents and the permission to coordinate entire projects are inseparable, making it impossible for Engineer A to ethically invoke II.2.c's coordination provision without also satisfying II.2.b's competence prerequisite for oversight judgment?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the Board's conclusion have differed if the county surveyor position had included no oversight of technical surveying or highway engineering work — for example, if the role were purely administrative — and does the presence of substantive oversight duties serve as the decisive ethical threshold in this case?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had accepted the position conditionally, immediately disclosed his competence limitations to the county commissioners, and proposed a formal arrangement in which a licensed professional surveyor or civil engineer held delegated technical authority for all surveying and highway improvement oversight decisions — would such proactive structural remediation have altered the Board's ethical finding?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the ethical analysis have changed if the county ordinance had specified not merely a PE credential but a PE with surveying or civil engineering experience — and does the ordinance's failure to specify domain expertise shift any portion of ethical responsibility from Engineer A to the county commissioners who designed and applied the requirement?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.163647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the Board's prior precedents in BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 had arisen in an employment context rather than a consulting context, would those cases have directly controlled the outcome here, and does the consulting-versus-employment distinction represent a principled ethical boundary or merely a structural convenience that should not alter the underlying competence obligation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.165623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.160505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.167691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:11:16.162275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Responsible Charge Definition Standard - Oversight Scope
type: ResponsibleChargeDefinitionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: State engineering licensing boards / NCEES model law
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Regulatory Definition of Responsible Charge for Engineering Oversight Roles
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:41.406112+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Responsible Charge Definition Standard
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
usedby: NSPE BER in analyzing the nature of Engineer A's supervisory duties
usedincontext: Relevant to determining what level of technical knowledge is required when an engineer exercises oversight (responsible charge) over surveying reports and highway improvement projects without personally preparing the documents, and whether a chemical engineer can meaningfully discharge such oversight duties
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.839915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Responsible Charge Engagement Invoked by County Surveyor Oversight Role
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
balancingwith: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
balancingwith: Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The county surveyor position requires substantive oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects; Engineer A's lack of domain competence means he cannot engage substantively with this work and can only provide nominal, administratively hollow oversight
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:54.301099+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Responsible charge requires genuine technical engagement, not merely administrative sign-off; an engineer without surveying or highway engineering background cannot provide the substantive review that the oversight role demands
invokedby: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
tensionresolution: The oversight-only character of the role does not reduce the responsible charge obligation to zero; it requires at minimum the ability to evaluate whether the work being overseen is technically adequate, which Engineer A cannot do
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.843802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Scope of Practice Boundary — Engineer A Chemical Engineering vs. Surveying and Highway Engineering
type: ScopeofPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board held that it would not be consistent with the Code for Engineer A to act as county surveyor when his expertise was limited to chemical engineering, establishing a clear scope-of-practice boundary.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Scope of Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's professional scope of practice was bounded by his competence in chemical engineering and did not extend to surveying or highway engineering, prohibiting him from accepting the county surveyor position whose core duties required competence in those domains.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout the duration of employment
textreferences: In Section II.2., the introductory section makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence.
textreferences: We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer A to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.851931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Employment-Context Non-Applicability — Engineer A County Surveyor
type: SectionII.2.cSpecialistRetentionEmployment-ContextNon-ApplicabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's potential argument that Section II.2.c permitted him to have qualified subordinates prepare and approve surveying documents while he exercised oversight was rejected by the Board on the grounds that II.2.c must be read in context of the preceding competence provisions and that the employment context forecloses consulting-style remediation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Employment-Context Non-Applicability Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not invoke NSPE Code Section II.2.c's specialist-retention provision as an independent ethical pathway to justify accepting the county surveyor position, because Section II.2.c must be read in the context of the preceding competence provisions and because the employment context forecloses the consulting-style specialist-retention mechanism.
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:54:41.577115+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
temporalscope: At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout the duration of employment
textreferences: First, Section II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence.
textreferences: It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.850525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

Statutory Public Role Oversight Non-Delegability Applied to County Surveyor Duties
type: StatutoryPublicRoleOversightDutyPersonalNon-DelegabilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Surveyor Position
appliedto: Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee
balancingwith: Consulting Practice Structural Flexibility Non-Transferability to Statutory Employment Roles
balancingwith: Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board rejected the argument that Engineer A could satisfy the county surveyor's oversight obligations by pointing to qualified surveyors preparing the underlying documents, finding that the oversight function itself was a personal non-delegable duty requiring Engineer A's own substantive competence.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 158
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 158
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:49:35.733633+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-delegability of the oversight function meant that Engineer A could not cure his competence deficiency by ensuring that qualified professionals performed the underlying technical work — the public interest protected by the oversight role required the incumbent personally to possess sufficient competence to evaluate and take responsibility for that work.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Statutory Public Role Oversight Duty Personal Non-Delegability Principle
sourcetext: We are convinced that neither is this the intent of the Code provisions nor is this what is commonly understood to be the proper oversight role of a county surveyor.
tensionresolution: No tension — the non-delegability principle and the oversight-competence threshold principle reinforce each other, both supporting the conclusion that Engineer A's acceptance was ethically impermissible.
textreferences: It could be stated that Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals, and that Engineer A's role would be to oversee those documents and reports.
textreferences: Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
textreferences: We are convinced that neither is this the intent of the Code provisions nor is this what is commonly understood to be the proper oversight role of a county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 158 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.836734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

county commissioners' meeting before Engineer A's acceptance of the position
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

firm's interview with public utility before firm's attempt to alter its qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction

first appointee's removal before Engineer A's appointment
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:59:11.853084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 158 Extraction