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'
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.
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
BER Case 71-2 (1971) before BER Case 78-5 (1978)
In BER Case 71-2 ... A second BER case, Case 78-5 ... This Board affirmed its decision rendered in Case 71-2
BER Case 71-2 (1971) before current NSPE Board analysis of Engineer A's conduct
The Code provisions under consideration in the case have been interpreted in the past by this Board ... In BER Case 71-2
current NSPE Board analysis of Engineer A's conduct
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.
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
BER Case 78-5 (1978) before current NSPE Board analysis of Engineer A's conduct
those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions
BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application — Cases 71-2 and 78-5 to County Surveyor
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.
BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
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.
During the Board's ethical analysis of the county surveyor case
BER Precedent Rationale Cross-Factual Relevance — Cases 71-2 and 78-5 Competence Provisions
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.
BER Precedent Rationale Cross-Factual Relevance Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Section II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
Board BER Cases 71-2 78-5 Consulting Context Inapplicability County Surveyor
Prior BER Consulting-Context Precedent Employment-Context Inapplicability Discrimination Capability
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
Board analysis of whether prior consulting-context BER precedents controlled the county surveyor employment appointment scenario
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
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.
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.
Board Oversight Role Minimum Competence Prerequisite County Surveyor
Oversight Role Minimum Substantive Competence Prerequisite Recognition Capability
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
Board analysis of whether Engineer A's oversight-only role description could satisfy the competence requirements of Section II.2
Articulation of the 'bare minimum' substantive competence threshold and rejection of the oversight-only exemption argument
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.
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.
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.
Board Section II.2.c Integrated Reading County Surveyor
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Capability
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
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
Explicit analysis rejecting the Section II.2.c specialist retention argument as an independent ethical pathway for Engineer A's county surveyor appointment
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.
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.
CausalLink_Commissioners Appoint Engineer
CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Surveyor Po
elected public officials / appointing authority
Appointment of someone lacking substantive surveying or highway engineering expertise
Potential compromise of public oversight quality for surveying reports and highway improvement projects
Satisfied the county ordinance's legal requirement that the position be filled by a licensed P.E.
Fill the vacant county surveyor position with a legally compliant P.E. to restore operational continuity
Authority to make appointments to county positions
Judgment to assess candidate qualifications beyond minimum legal requirements
Understanding of the technical demands of county surveyor oversight responsibilities
Obligation to appoint personnel with substantive competence commensurate with the responsibilities of the role
Obligation to protect the public interest by ensuring qualified oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
County commissioners convened and deliberately selected Engineer A, a P.E. with solely chemical engineering background, to fill the vacant county surveyor position after the first appointee was removed for lacking licensure.
Commissioners Appoint Engineer A → Engineer A Holds PE License (satisfies formal requirement) but Engineer A Lacks Surveying Competence (creates ethical violation)
County commissioners convened and deliberately selected Engineer A, a P.E. with solely chemical engineering background, to fill the county surveyor position following the removal of the first unqualified appointee
Had commissioners required domain-specific surveying competence or had the ordinance specified a surveying PE, Engineer A would not have been appointed
Engineer A Holds PE License (satisfies formal requirement) but Engineer A Lacks Surveying Competence (creates ethical violation)
Absence of additional ordinance language requiring surveying-specific expertise
Commissioners' decision to prioritize formal PE credential over domain-specific competence
Engineer A's availability and possession of a PE license
Vacancy created by removal of first appointee
Combination of open vacancy + ordinance requiring only PE licensure + commissioners selecting Engineer A as a technically compliant but substantively unqualified candidate
It was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Consulting Firm Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement County Surveyor Contrast
Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
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
Referenced by the Board as a contrasting example to illustrate the consulting-versus-employment flexibility distinction
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
Consulting Engineering Firm Retaining Specialists
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.
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.
Consulting vs. Employment Competence Flexibility Differential — Engineer A Fixed Public Role
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.
Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout tenure
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.
County Commissioners Appointing Authority Engineering Competence Domain Verification County Surveyor
Appointing Authority Engineering Competence Domain Verification Capability
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.
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
Appointment of Engineer A based on PE licensure without verifying domain-relevant competence in surveying or highway engineering
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
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
County Ordinance - County Surveyor P.E. Requirement
Local County Ordinance Requiring P.E. Licensure for County Surveyor Position
The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position.
County commissioners in making appointment decision; Engineer A in accepting the position
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
County Ordinance Establishes PE Requirement
The county surveyor role is legally transformed from an administrative post into a position with mandatory professional licensure requirements; any appointment without PE credentials is rendered legally invalid from this point forward.
Prior to all appointments; background legal condition
A county ordinance was enacted mandating that the county surveyor position be filled by a licensed Professional Engineer, creating a binding legal qualification standard for the role.
County Ordinance Establishes PE Requirement → First Appointee Removed as Unqualified
A county ordinance was enacted mandating that the county surveyor position be filled by a licensed PE, and the first person appointed was found not to hold a PE license and was removed
Without the county ordinance establishing the PE requirement, the first appointee would not have been removed solely on credential grounds
Active enforcement or review of credential compliance
Existence of enforceable PE licensure requirement in county ordinance
First appointee lacking a valid PE license
County Commissioners (initial appointment decision)
Combination of mandatory PE ordinance + appointee's absence of PE license + enforcement action
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A (Chemical PE Offered County Surveyor Appointment)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A (Appointed County Surveyor Lacking Domain Competence)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
County Commissioners (Appointing Authority for County Surveyor)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A (Only Available PE in Context of No Qualified Alternative)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Board of Ethical Review (Ethics Adjudicator)
Education-Experience Competence Threshold — Engineer A County Surveyor Surveying and Highway Engineering
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.
Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
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.
Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
Again, the position that Engineer A is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise.
Education-Experience Competence Threshold — Engineer A Surveying Highway Engineering
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.
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.
Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
licensed Professional Engineer, chemical engineering specialty
Exercising oversight responsibilities in surveying and highway improvement without substantive expertise in those domains
Potential compromise of the quality and integrity of public oversight functions
Risk of harm to public safety and welfare due to uninformed oversight judgments
Satisfied the county ordinance's minimum legal requirement by virtue of holding a P.E. license
Competence as a prerequisite to professional practice
Honesty regarding one's own qualifications and limitations
Public safety and welfare as paramount obligation
Assume the county surveyor position, likely motivated by professional opportunity, public service, or career advancement
Ability to critically evaluate and exercise informed oversight judgment over surveying reports
Ability to identify errors, deficiencies, or public safety risks in highway improvement project documentation
Professional judgment commensurate with the oversight responsibilities of a county surveyor
Substantive knowledge of highway improvement engineering
Substantive knowledge of land surveying principles and practices
At time of appointment, after commissioners' decision
Ethical obligation to go beyond mere legal permissibility and ensure actual professional competence
NSPE Code Section II.2, obligation to perform services only in areas of competence
NSPE Code Section II.2.a, obligation to undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
Obligation to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring competent oversight of public infrastructure projects
Engineer A, a licensed P.E. with background and experience exclusively in chemical engineering, made the volitional decision to accept appointment as county surveyor, a role requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects outside his area of expertise.
Engineer A Accepts Surveyor Position → NSPE BER Reviews Engineer A's Conduct
Engineer A, a licensed P.E. with background and experience exclusively in chemical engineering, made the volitional decision to accept the county surveyor position, which the NSPE Board of Ethical Review formally analyzed as ethically improper
Had Engineer A declined the appointment, no ethical violation would have occurred and BER review would not have been triggered
A formal complaint or referral triggering BER review
Engineer A's deliberate acceptance of a role outside their area of competence
Engineer A's knowledge of their own lack of surveying expertise
Existence of NSPE ethical codes governing competence and scope of practice
Combination of Engineer A's acceptance of an incompatible role + NSPE codes prohibiting practice outside competence + BER's mandate to review such conduct
Engineer A Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite County Surveyor
Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite Cross-Context Application Capability
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.
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
Acceptance of the county surveyor position despite the Case 85-3 precedent directly addressing this scenario
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
Engineer A Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency County Surveyor Recognition
Cross-Discipline PE License County Surveyor Non-Sufficiency Recognition Capability
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.
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
Apparent reliance on PE licensure as sufficient qualification for the county surveyor appointment without recognizing the domain competence gap
Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition County Surveyor
Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
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.
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
Failure to correctly classify the county surveyor duties as outside the boundary of chemical engineering competence
oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
Engineer A Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility County Surveyor
Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
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
Engineer A's background was in consulting-context engineering; the county surveyor position was a statutory employment role with non-delegable oversight duties
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
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.
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.
Engineer A becomes formally eligible under the ordinance's literal text; however, a substantive competence gap exists between the credential held (chemical engineering) and the skills required (land surveying), creating a latent ethical tension that will be activated upon appointment.
Pre-existing condition at time of appointment
Engineer A possesses a valid Professional Engineer license, satisfying the formal legal credential requirement of the county ordinance, though the license is in chemical engineering rather than any surveying-related discipline.
Engineer A Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap County Surveyor
Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
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
Engineer A accepted appointment as county surveyor with background solely in chemical engineering, a domain entirely unrelated to the position's oversight duties
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
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.
Engineer A Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination County Surveyor
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.
Unlike a consulting firm that could engage subconsultants, a county surveyor appointee cannot delegate the oversight responsibilities that define the role
Acceptance of the county surveyor appointment despite an irreconcilable competence gap in a public employment context where gap remediation was not feasible
A fundamental mismatch exists between Engineer A's actual competence and the role's technical requirements; this gap activates core NSPE Code provisions requiring engineers to practice only within their areas of competence; the public interest is placed at risk if this gap is not addressed before or immediately upon acceptance.
Pre-existing condition; becomes ethically relevant at time of appointment and acceptance
Engineer A's professional expertise is solely in chemical engineering, meaning Engineer A has no training, experience, or demonstrated competence in land surveying, the core technical function of the county surveyor position.
Engineer A PE License Legal Minimum Ethics Higher Standard County Surveyor
PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition Capability
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
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
Acceptance of the county surveyor appointment on the basis of PE licensure alone, without recognizing the higher ethical standard requiring domain-specific competence
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.
Engineer A Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment County Surveyor
Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer A (chemical PE) accepted appointment as county surveyor whose duties include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — domains outside chemical engineering
Acceptance of the county surveyor position without apparent self-assessment of domain competence gap
Engineer A Section II.2.c Misapplication County Surveyor
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
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
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
Engineer A Structurally Impossible Compliance County Surveyor
Structurally Impossible Compliance Ethical Declination Capability
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
Engineer A accepted the county surveyor appointment despite having no background in surveying or highway engineering, creating an inescapable ethical violation
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
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.
Engineer A's acceptance of county surveyor position before NSPE Board ethical review of Engineer A's conduct
Engineer A accepted the position. [The Board then analyzes whether this acceptance was ethical]
Engineer A's acceptance of county surveyor position
NSPE Board ethical review of Engineer A's conduct
First Amendment Rights as Ethical Contrast Example
First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
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.
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
County surveyor position becomes vacant; commissioners are under pressure to appoint a qualified replacement; the failure of the first appointment heightens scrutiny on the next selection; a precedent is established that the ordinance will be enforced.
After first appointment; before Engineer A's appointment
The first person appointed to the county surveyor position was found not to hold a PE license and was subsequently removed from the position as legally unqualified under the county ordinance.
First Unqualified County Surveyor Appointee
{'license': 'Not a PE', 'position': 'County Surveyor (first appointee)', 'outcome': 'Deemed unqualified and removed'}
The initial appointee to the county surveyor position who lacked PE licensure as required by local ordinance and was consequently deemed unqualified to continue.
{'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Commissioners Appointing Authority'}
{'type': 'replaced_by', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
Fixed Public Employment Competence Remediation Structural Impossibility — Engineer A County Surveyor
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.
Fixed Public Employment Competence Remediation Structural Impossibility Constraint
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.
From the moment of appointment acceptance through the duration of employment as county surveyor
General PE Licensure Non-Authorization for County Surveyor Domain Practice — Engineer A
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.
General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
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.
At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout the duration of employment
General PE Licensure Non-Authorization — Engineer A Chemical PE County Surveyor
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.
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.
NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
At the time of appointment acceptance and throughout tenure as county surveyor
Governmental Appointing Authority Domain Competence Verification — County Commissioners Engineer A
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.
Governmental Appointing Authority Domain Competence Verification Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Section II.2.a; professional ethics principles governing public appointments
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.
Institutional Administrative Role Competence Non-Expansion — County Surveyor Appointment
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.
Institutional Administrative Role Competence Non-Expansion Constraint
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.
Legal Permissibility Non-Equivalence to Ethical Permissibility — Engineer A PE License County Surveyor
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.
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Competence Constraint
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.
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading — Section II.2 County Surveyor Context
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.
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Sealing Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, II.2.c; BER Case 85-3
The case moves from a factual/legal dispute about credentials into the domain of professional ethics adjudication; the BER's review transforms Engineer A's individual decision into a precedent-setting ethical ruling with implications for all engineers facing similar situations.
After Engineer A accepts position; retrospective ethical review
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review formally analyzed the ethical propriety of Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position, referencing prior BER cases (71-2 and 78-5) to contextualize applicable Code of Ethics provisions before rendering its judgment.
NSPE Code Section II.2 — Competence Obligation
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Subsections (a, b, c)
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.
We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts
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
The Board notes that its evaluation of the facts of this case is limited to an interpretation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
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.
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
NSPE Code of Ethics - Competence Provisions
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
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
Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background — Engineer A County Surveyor Oversight Duties
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.
Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 85-3; BER Case 94-8
The ethical analysis is grounded in established interpretive history; Engineer A's case is no longer evaluated in isolation but within a body of professional ethics jurisprudence; the existence of prior cases signals that the competence-in-specialty issue is not novel, increasing the expectation that Engineer A should have been aware of the ethical standard.
Referenced during BER review; precedents established in 1971 and 1978
BER Cases 71-2 (1971) and 78-5 (1978) were identified as relevant precedents contextualizing the NSPE Code provisions applicable to Engineer A's situation, establishing an interpretive framework for the current ethical review.
Prior BER Precedents Become Applicable → NSPE BER Reviews Engineer A's Conduct (informed by established ethical standards)
BER Cases 71-2 (1971) and 78-5 (1978) were identified as relevant precedents contextualizing the NSPE's ethical analysis of Engineer A's acceptance of a position outside their area of competence
Without prior precedents, BER review would still occur but would lack established doctrinal grounding, potentially resulting in a less definitive or differently reasoned ethical ruling
NSPE BER Reviews Engineer A's Conduct (informed by established ethical standards)
BER's reliance on precedent in its formal review process
Existence of prior BER rulings establishing that engineers must not practice outside their competence
Factual similarity between Engineer A's situation and prior precedent cases
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (institutional)
Combination of applicable precedents + Engineer A's conduct matching prior fact patterns + BER's mandate to apply consistent ethical standards
Professional Competence Standard - Disciplinary Scope
Professional engineering community / NSPE
Professional Norms Governing Practice Within Areas of Competence
Engineer A in evaluating whether to accept the appointment; NSPE BER in assessing ethical propriety
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
Public Safety Paramount — County Surveyor Oversight Competence Requirement
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.
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.
Was it ethical for Engineer A to accept the position of county surveyor?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Responsible Charge Definition Standard - Oversight Scope
State engineering licensing boards / NCEES model law
Regulatory Definition of Responsible Charge for Engineering Oversight Roles
NSPE BER in analyzing the nature of Engineer A's supervisory duties
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
Scope of Practice Boundary — Engineer A Chemical Engineering vs. Surveying and Highway Engineering
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.
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.
county commissioners' meeting before Engineer A's acceptance of the position
The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A ... Engineer A accepted the position
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.93
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.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
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.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
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.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
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
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.92
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.
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.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.92
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
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.
Defeasibility edge from concreteexpression
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.91
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.
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.9
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
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.
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.94
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
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.
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
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
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.
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
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.
firm's interview with public utility before firm's attempt to alter its qualifications
the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract
firm's attempt to alter its qualifications
first appointee's removal before Engineer A's appointment
The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position. The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A
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, admi
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 vio
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
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
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 provis
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 d
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 oversigh
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 discha
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 surv
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 unde
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 domai
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
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 aut
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
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-d
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 deter
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
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 t
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 commis
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 qualifi
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 competen
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 co
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 appointi
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
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 co
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
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 whos
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
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 hi
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 che
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 purpos
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 requ
Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement — Land Surveying Firm Example
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.
Consulting Engineering Firm (hypothetical)
NSPE Code Section II.2.c; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
At the time of engagement acceptance and during performance of services
Consulting vs. Employment Competence Flexibility Differential — Engineer A County Surveyor
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.
County Ordinance PE Requirement — Legal Credential Constraint County Surveyor
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.
County commissioners and county surveyor appointee
Local county ordinance requiring PE licensure for county surveyor position
Ongoing; applicable to all appointments to the county surveyor position
Cross-Discipline PE Appointment Non-Sufficiency — Engineer A Chemical PE County Surveyor Acceptance
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.
Cross-Discipline PE Appointment Public Role Domain Non-Sufficiency Constraint
NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3, 94-8
Oversight Role Judgment and Discretion Domain Competence Prerequisite — Engineer A County Surveyor
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.
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Employment-Context Non-Applicability — Engineer A County Surveyor
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.
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Employment-Context Non-Applicability Constraint
Board Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Section II.2 County Surveyor
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.
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Obligation
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.
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
During the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's county surveyor appointment
County Ordinance PE Requirement Regulatory Context
Ongoing — established by county ordinance and persisting as the legal backdrop for the appointment
local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
The legal framework requiring a PE to fill the county surveyor position
first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
County ordinance establishing PE requirement for county surveyor position; prior appointee removed for non-compliance
Engineer A Chemical PE Appointed as County Surveyor
From Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment onward
Public relying on county surveyor oversight
Surveyors and highway engineers whose work is overseen
Supervisory Public Role Domain Competence Mismatch State
Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor with chemical engineering background
Engineer A declining the position, resigning, or successfully supplementing domain competence for surveying and highway oversight
do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
County commissioners' appointment of Engineer A as county surveyor despite chemical-engineering-only background
Engineer A County Surveyor Inescapable Ethical Impermissibility
From the point Engineer A accepted or considered accepting the county surveyor position through the Board's evaluation
Public relying on competent surveying oversight
Qualified surveyors whose work would be overseen
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
No Ethical Course of Action Available in Incompetent Fixed Role State
Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position
Not terminated within the case — the Board concludes no ethical course of action is available
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
Engineer A (chemical engineer) accepting appointment as county surveyor with duties requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
Engineer A Formal Credential Without Substantive Domain Competence — Employment Instance
From Engineer A's appointment as county surveyor through the Board's evaluation
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
Formal Credential Compliance Without Substantive Domain Competence State
Engineer A holding a valid PE license satisfying the statutory credential requirement for county surveyor while lacking any surveying or highway engineering expertise
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
Engineer A's PE license satisfying the statutory credential requirement for county surveyor appointment despite his expertise being limited to chemical engineering
Engineer A Oversight Competence Non-Delegability
During the Board's evaluation of whether the 'others will do the technical work' argument provides an ethical pathway for Engineer A
Qualified subordinates who would prepare documents
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
Oversight Role Substantive Competence Non-Delegable State
The argument that Engineer A's oversight role could be satisfied by having qualified subordinates prepare and approve technical documents
Board's rejection of the administrative-reframing argument and affirmation that oversight requires substantive domain competence
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
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
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
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
PE Ordinance Requirement Formally Satisfied Without Domain Alignment
From the moment Engineer A accepts the appointment through any disclosure or resignation
General public served by county surveyor function
Engineer A's PE credential satisfying the county ordinance requirement while domain expertise is misaligned
Disclosure to commissioners of domain limitation, resignation, or competence remediation
county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified
County ordinance requiring PE credential applied to Engineer A whose PE is in chemical engineering, not surveying or civil/highway engineering
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'contrasted_with', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
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
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
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
County Surveyor Position Outside Chemical Engineering Competence
From acceptance of appointment through competence remediation or role termination
Surveyors and highway engineers subject to oversight
Engineer A's competence relative to surveying and highway improvement oversight duties
Engineer A acquiring sufficient domain knowledge, retaining qualified advisors, or resigning the position
Engineer A accepting a county surveyor role requiring oversight of surveying and highway engineering with no background in either field
County Commissioners Appointing Authority
{'body_type': 'County governmental commission', 'authority': 'Statutory appointment authority for county surveyor position', 'action': 'Appointed Engineer A despite competence mismatch'}
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.
{'type': 'appoints', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
{'type': 'enforces_ordinance', 'target': 'County PE Licensure Requirement'}
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Surveyor Appointing Authority'}
{'type': 'filled_by', 'target': 'Engineer A County Surveyor Appointee'}
Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
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
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
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
Engineer A Competence Limitation Recognition Escalation County Surveyor
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.
Competence Limitation Recognition and Supervisor Escalation Obligation
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.
Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
At the time of appointment offer and acceptance
The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
Engineer A Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement County Surveyor Contrast
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.
Consulting Engineering Firm (contrasting example)
Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
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.
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
When a consulting firm is retained for services outside its competence
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
Engineer A Consulting vs. Employment Asymmetry Inapplicability
Throughout the Board's analysis of whether consulting-context precedents apply to Engineer A's situation
there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
Consulting vs. Employment Competence Remediation Asymmetry State
The Board's analysis distinguishing BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 (consulting context) from Engineer A's employment context
Board's conclusion that consulting-context flexibility mechanisms are unavailable in Engineer A's employment role
Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel
in the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility
in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible
Attempt to apply consulting-context ethics precedents (BER 71-2, 78-5) to Engineer A's fixed public employment role as county surveyor
Engineer A Employment Context Competence Constraint — No Remediation Pathway
From Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position through the Board's evaluation
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
Employment Context Competence Constraint State
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
Engineer A accepting a fixed statutory public employment role with no authority to subcontract or restructure duties to compensate for domain incompetence
Engineer A Supervisory Role Domain Incompetence — County Surveyor
From Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment through the Board's evaluation
Supervisory Role Domain Incompetence Acceptance State
Engineer A accepting the county surveyor role requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements despite having no background in surveying or highway engineering
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
Engineer A (chemical engineer) accepting appointment as county surveyor with statutory oversight duties in surveying and highway improvement domains
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to County Surveyor Appointment
PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
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.
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.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
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.
Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Applied to County Surveyor Public Trust
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.
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.
Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
No tension — the licensure-grounded public duty principle reinforces the competence obligation in the public statutory context.
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.
Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Invoked by County Ordinance PE Requirement
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
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
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.
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
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Statutory PE Requirement Purpose
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
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
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
Responsible Charge Engagement Invoked by County Surveyor Oversight Role
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Principle
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
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
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
Board Prior Consulting Precedent Employment Context Inapplicability BER Cases 71-2 78-5
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.
Prior Consulting-Context Precedent Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Obligation
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.
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
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
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
Engineer A Inescapable Ethical Violation County Surveyor Position
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.
Inescapable Ethical Violation Acceptance Prohibition Upon Structurally Impossible Compliance Obligation
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.
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
At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
Engineer A Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
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.
Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Obligation
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.
At the time the appointment was offered and accepted
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Applied to County Surveyor Position
Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
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.
The principle operates consistently with the appointment prohibition — both converge on the conclusion that Engineer A's acceptance was ethically impermissible.
Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Applied to County Surveyor Oversight Duties
Statutory Public Role Oversight Duty Personal Non-Delegability Principle
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.
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.
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.
No tension — both principles reinforce the conclusion that Engineer A lacked the minimum competence to perform meaningful oversight.
PE License Non-Equivalence Invoked by Engineer A Appointment
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
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.
Statutory Public Role Oversight Non-Delegability Applied to County Surveyor Duties
Consulting Practice Structural Flexibility Non-Transferability to Statutory Employment Roles
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.
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.
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.
County Commissioners Appointing Authority Competence Verification County Surveyor
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.
Appointing Authority Competence Verification Before Public Position Appointment Obligation
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.
Before making the appointment of Engineer A
Engineer A Institutional Role Non-Expansion Competence County Surveyor
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.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Scope Obligation
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.
Upon and after accepting the appointment
Institutional Role Non-Expansion Invoked by County Surveyor Appointment
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
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
Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Invoked by County Surveyor Oversight Duties
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
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
PE-License-Non-Equivalence Invoked Against Engineer A County Surveyor Appointment
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.
Prior Case Precedent Contextual Transposition Applied to BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5
Precedent consistency and predictability
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.
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.
Prior Case Precedent Contextual Transposition Obligation
Engineer A Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency County Surveyor
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.
Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency for Structural Assignment Acceptance Obligation
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.
Before and at the time of accepting the appointment
Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Verification County Surveyor Acceptance
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.
Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
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.
Engineer A Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance County Surveyor
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.
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.
Again, the position that Engineer A is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise
Section II.2.a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
Engineer A Statutory Oversight Non-Delegability County Surveyor
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.
Statutory Public Oversight Role Non-Delegable Personal Competence Prerequisite Obligation
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.
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
Throughout occupancy of the county surveyor position
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
Ethics Code Internal Cross-Provision Integration Applied to Section II.2.b and II.2.c
Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition in Structurally Impossible Compliance Scenarios
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.
Ethics Code Internal Cross-Provision Integration Obligation
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.
Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition Applied to Engineer A's County Surveyor Situation
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked by Specialist Retention Contrast
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
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
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Invoked by Engineer A
Civic duty to fill necessary public positions
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
Engineer A Ethics Exceeds Legal Permissibility County Surveyor PE License
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.
Ethics-Exceeds-Legal-Permissibility County Surveyor Appointment Compliance Obligation
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.
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
Engineer A Oversight Role Domain Competence Prerequisite County Surveyor
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.
Oversight-Only Role Competence Non-Exemption Obligation
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.
At the time of evaluating and accepting the appointment
Engineer A Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Misapplication County Surveyor
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.
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Competence-Context-Constrained Reading Obligation
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.
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
At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment and in any subsequent ethical analysis of the appointment
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
Engineer A Consulting Practice Flexibility Non-Transferability County Surveyor
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.
Consulting-Practice Workforce Flexibility Non-Transferability to Statutory Public Employment Obligation
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.
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
At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment and throughout occupancy of the position
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
{'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)'}
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.
{'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Commissioners'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'General Public / County Residents'}
Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer