Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition — Engineer W — Shadyvale Water Main
Engineer W's directive was motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 water main replacement, but this altruistic motive does not authorize circumvention of DOT policy or covert diversion of approximately $700,000 in public funds.
Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition Constraint
Engineer W's genuine sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship and the public benefit of upgrading the undersized water main does not justify directing a deliberate design manipulation to circumvent the DOT's unambiguous utility betterment cost-allocation policy.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5 (benevolent motives do not justify compromising ethical obligations); NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 5
The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
At the time of design development review when Engineer W communicated the indirect directive to Engineer Intern D
As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 86-6 (Intentional Misleading by Obscuring Truth)
in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in establishing the standard for deceptive conduct
Cited within the discussion of BER Case 05-5 as establishing the standard characterization of conduct 'intentionally designed to mislead by obscuring the truth,' providing foundational precedent for the deception analysis
in the words of prior BER Case 86-6... In BER Case 98-5, case numbering implies chronological precedence
In BER Case 98-5... BER Case 05-5 relates how Engineer Adam, case numbering implies chronological precedence
CausalLink_Compliance Decision by Intern
CausalLink_Indirect Design Redirection Or
CausalLink_Responsibility-Shifting Sign-O
CausalLink_Utility-Avoidance Compliant De
Either decision will shape Engineer Intern D's professional identity and ethical disposition at a formative pre-licensure stage
If compliant: participation in policy circumvention, creation of a false engineering record, professional and legal exposure despite sign-off offer, lasting harm to professional ethical formation
If non-compliant: potential supervisory conflict, career risk in a dependent pre-licensure position, but preservation of professional integrity and fulfillment of independent ethical obligation
If non-compliant: Canon 4 faithful agency to DOT employer, Canon 3 objectivity and truthfulness, Canon 1 public welfare, independent ethical obligation as a pre-licensure engineer
NSPE Code Canon 1: Engineers shall hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount
NSPE Code Canon 3: Engineers shall issue only objective and truthful statements
NSPE Code Canon 4: Engineers shall act as faithful agents of their employers
Obligation to report unethical supervisory conduct through appropriate channels if direct compliance is refused
Pre-licensure engineers bear independent ethical obligations and cannot defer ethical judgment entirely to supervisors
Professional responsibility is personal and non-transferable regardless of supervisory sign-off
deliberative and under duress, decision not yet made
Undetermined at time of analysis; compliance would produce a revised design intentionally impacting the water main; non-compliance would require Engineer Intern D to resist supervisory direction and potentially escalate the ethical conflict
Ability to identify and utilize legitimate escalation channels for reporting unethical supervisory conduct
Independent ethical judgment under supervisory pressure
Knowledge of DOT policy and the ethical significance of intentional utility conflict manipulation
Understanding that professional responsibility is personal and non-transferable
Pending at the time of case analysis, unresolved decision point following Engineer W's directive and sign-off offer
If compliant: Canon 1 public welfare, contributing to misallocation of DOT public funds
If compliant: Canon 3 objectivity, executing a design that misrepresents a manufactured conflict as unavoidable
If compliant: Canon 4 faithful agency to DOT employer by participating in policy circumvention
If compliant: Independent ethical obligation, reliance on Engineer W's sign-off as moral cover abdicates personal professional responsibility
At the time of case analysis, Engineer Intern D faced the unresolved volitional decision of whether to comply with Engineer W's directive to revise the design to intentionally impact the water main. This pending decision represents the central ethical choice of the case and the point at which Engineer Intern D must exercise independent professional judgment despite supervisory pressure.
Compliant design exists as formal work product; design enters review phase; the existence of this compliant design makes subsequent redirection a deliberate choice to abandon compliance, not a correction of error
Design development phase; following project assignment and before design development review
Engineer Intern D completed an initial highway reconstruction design that successfully avoided conflicts with existing utilities, including the aging water main, in full compliance with DOT policy. This design represented the technically and ethically correct outcome of the assignment as originally framed.
It would not be ethical for Engineer Intern D to accede to Engineer W’s veiled directive to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer Intern D should not accede to Engineer W's veiled directive, the indirectness of Engineer W's communication itself constitutes a distinct ethical violation independent of the underlying policy circumvention. By conveying the design redirection in an oblique, deniable manner rather than issuing a direct written order, Engineer W engaged in a form of institutional deception — structuring the communication to obscure the policy conflict from DOT oversight while still achieving the policy-violating outcome. This indirection does not reduce Engineer Intern D's ethical burden; it heightens it. Because Engineer Intern D demonstrably understood the directive's import — the case facts establish that he grasped the cost-allocation mechanism and its policy implications — the ambiguity of the communication cannot function as cover for compliance. An intern who recognizes that an indirect directive is designed to circumvent policy bears the same refusal obligation as one who receives an explicit order to the same effect.
Engineer W's offer to personally sign off on the revised design does not transfer ethical responsibility away from Engineer Intern D and cannot function as an ethical shield for the intern's compliance. The sign-off promise is structurally a responsibility-laundering mechanism: it is designed to make Engineer Intern D feel insulated from consequences while still securing his technical execution of the policy-violating revision. Under the NSPE Code's faithful agent and deception avoidance provisions, each engineer bears independent ethical obligations that cannot be contractually or informally reassigned by a supervisor's promise. Applying the Kantian universalizability test, a maxim permitting interns to execute policy-violating designs whenever a supervisor accepts nominal sign-off responsibility would, if universalized, systematically enable senior engineers to circumvent institutional controls by routing violations through subordinates — a result that is self-defeating as a professional norm and corrosive to the integrity of public engineering institutions. Engineer Intern D therefore retains full independent culpability for executing the revision regardless of Engineer W's offer.
Engineer Intern D's ethical obligations in this situation extend beyond mere refusal of the directive to an affirmative obligation to escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority. Silent non-compliance — declining to revise the design without reporting the directive — would leave Engineer W's policy-circumventing conduct unaddressed and would fail to protect the institutional integrity of the DOT cost-allocation framework. The fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam does not diminish this escalation obligation; if anything, the pre-licensure context heightens its importance, because the formative professional norms Engineer Intern D internalizes at this stage will shape his conduct throughout his career. The escalation obligation is also practically significant: Engineer W's deliberate use of indirect communication was specifically calibrated to avoid creating a formal record of the directive, meaning that Engineer Intern D's upward reporting would supply precisely the institutional accountability that Engineer W's indirection was designed to prevent.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer W should not sign off on the manipulated design, Engineer W's conduct represents a compounded ethical failure that cannot be redeemed by the genuinely benevolent motive of assisting Shadyvale's financially constrained municipality. The NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation requires Engineer W to act as a trustee of DOT resources and policy, not as an independent arbiter of which public interests deserve cross-subsidization through covert fund diversion. The approximately $700,000 in DOT funds that would be redirected to Shadyvale's water main upgrade are public funds subject to legislatively and administratively established cost-allocation rules; Engineer W lacks the authority to unilaterally redistribute them through design manipulation, regardless of how sympathetic Shadyvale's situation may be. Benevolent motive is not an ethical defense under the Code — it is precisely the kind of rationalization that enables well-intentioned engineers to cause institutional harm while believing themselves to be acting virtuously. The ethical path available to Engineer W was transparent institutional advocacy: formally petitioning DOT leadership or the relevant legislative authority for a hardship exception or policy amendment on Shadyvale's behalf. That pathway was available, would have been professionally appropriate, and would have achieved the same public benefit without deception or policy circumvention.
Engineer W's signing off on the manipulated design would constitute a violation of the responsible charge obligation that is analytically distinct from, and compounding of, the faithful agent and deception violations. Responsible charge requires active, substantive review of work to ensure policy and technical compliance — not nominal endorsement of a design that the reviewing engineer himself directed to be made non-compliant. When Engineer W offers to sign off on the revised design, he is simultaneously abdicating genuine responsible charge review and weaponizing the sign-off mechanism as an institutional cover for the policy violation. The sign-off, in this context, would function as a false professional representation to the DOT institution: it would signal to the agency that the design has been reviewed for policy compliance when in fact the reviewing engineer is the architect of the policy circumvention. This transforms the sign-off from a quality assurance instrument into a deception instrument, implicating the Code's honesty and deception avoidance provisions in addition to the faithful agent obligation.
Engineer W's direction of Engineer Intern D to execute a policy-circumventing design revision constitutes a distinct and serious ethical failure in professional mentorship that the Board's conclusions do not explicitly address. Engineer Intern D is at the most formative stage of his professional career — he is about to sit for the PE exam, the threshold credential that marks entry into the licensed profession. The professional norms, ethical reflexes, and institutional dispositions that Engineer Intern D internalizes through his supervised practice at this stage will shape his conduct for decades. By using Engineer Intern D as the instrument of a policy circumvention, Engineer W is not merely committing an isolated ethical violation; he is actively modeling for a pre-licensure engineer that indirect communication, supervisor sign-off promises, and benevolent rationalization are acceptable tools for navigating policy constraints. This formative harm is independent of and additional to the immediate policy violation, and it represents a breach of the senior engineer's obligation to conduct himself in a manner that enhances the honor and reputation of the profession — an obligation that carries heightened weight when the audience is an engineer in professional formation.
The counterfactual in which the water main conflict was genuinely unavoidable — where the highway alignment truly could not have been designed around the existing main — illuminates with precision why the artificial manufacture of a utility conflict is the core ethical violation in this case, rather than the cost outcome itself. Under DOT policy, a genuinely unavoidable conflict would have entitled Shadyvale to exactly the cost relief that Engineer W is attempting to engineer artificially. The ethical violation is therefore not the outcome — Shadyvale receiving DOT-funded water main replacement — but the means: the deliberate falsification of the engineering record to make an avoidable conflict appear unavoidable. This distinction is critical because it demonstrates that the NSPE Code's honesty and deception avoidance provisions are violated not by the cost allocation result but by the misrepresentation of engineering facts to achieve it. It also confirms that Engineer W's conduct cannot be defended on public welfare grounds: the public welfare argument would justify the outcome only if the factual predicate — unavoidability — were true, and Engineer W's entire scheme depends on manufacturing that predicate falsely.
It would not be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on a design altered so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project.
In response to Q101: Engineer W's deliberate use of indirect, veiled language to convey the design redirection directive — rather than issuing a direct written order — itself constitutes a deceptive act under the NSPE Code. By obscuring the directive's policy-violating character through indirection, Engineer W exploited the ambiguity of informal communication to create plausible deniability while still achieving the policy-circumventing outcome. This indirection is not ethically neutral; it is a calculated mechanism to avoid the institutional scrutiny that a direct written order would invite. Under Code provisions I.3 and I.5, which require objective and truthful public statements and prohibit deceptive acts, the choice of indirect communication is itself a violation independent of the substantive design manipulation it produces. For Engineer Intern D, this indirection imposes a heightened — not diminished — ethical burden. The very ambiguity Engineer W introduced cannot serve as cover for compliance. An engineer who recognizes that a supervisor's indirect communication is designed to achieve a policy-violating outcome is obligated to name that conflict explicitly rather than treat the ambiguity as permission to proceed. Engineer Intern D's professional formation, his imminent PE examination, and his demonstrated knowledge of DOT utility betterment policy all establish that he possessed the capability to recognize the directive's policy-violating character. The indirectness of the communication therefore heightens rather than excuses Engineer Intern D's independent ethical responsibility to refuse and escalate.
In response to Q102: Engineer W's explicit offer to personally sign off on the revised design does not transfer ethical and professional responsibility away from Engineer Intern D, nor does it extinguish Engineer Intern D's independent ethical culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating. The sign-off promise functions as a responsibility-shifting mechanism — a form of institutional cover — but it cannot operate as a moral shield under the NSPE Code. Code provision I.4 requires each engineer individually to act as a faithful agent or trustee of the employer; that obligation is personal and non-delegable. Engineer Intern D's duty to comply with DOT utility betterment policy is not contingent on whether a supervisor endorses the violation. Moreover, the sign-off promise is itself ethically suspect: it is offered precisely because Engineer W knows the revised design would not survive neutral institutional review, and the promise is therefore a mechanism to suppress that review rather than to satisfy it. Engineer Intern D, who possesses knowledge of DOT policy and has already produced a compliant design, cannot in good conscience treat the sign-off promise as absolution. A maxim permitting interns to execute policy-violating designs whenever a supervisor accepts personal responsibility would, if universalized, systematically enable senior engineers to launder policy circumvention through subordinates — a result that is self-defeating as a professional norm and directly contrary to the Code's requirement that engineers conduct themselves honorably and lawfully under provision I.6.
In response to Q103: Engineer Intern D bears an affirmative obligation to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and this obligation is not diminished by his unlicensed status. The NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation under provision I.4 and its prohibition on deceptive acts under provision I.5 apply to all engineers regardless of licensure status. Engineer Intern D's imminent PE examination is ethically significant not as a reason for reduced obligation but as evidence that he has internalized the professional standards that make the policy conflict recognizable to him. The argument that an intern should defer to supervisory judgment as a matter of epistemic humility has force only where the supervisor's directive falls within a range of reasonable professional judgment; it has no force where the directive unambiguously violates a clear written policy, as is the case here. Silent refusal — declining to revise the design without escalating — satisfies the non-complicity obligation but does not fully discharge Engineer Intern D's duties, because it leaves Engineer W free to reassign the work or pursue the policy circumvention through other means. Escalation to higher DOT authority is the affirmative step that creates institutional accountability and protects the public funds that DOT policy is designed to safeguard. The graduated escalation pathway available to Engineer Intern D — raising the conflict with Engineer W directly, then escalating to DOT supervisory authority if Engineer W persists — is both practically available and professionally obligatory under the circumstances.
In response to Q104: Engineer W's conduct in directing Engineer Intern D — a pre-licensure engineer on the verge of taking the PE examination — to execute a policy-circumventing design constitutes a distinct and serious ethical failure in professional mentorship, separate from and compounding the faithful agent and deception violations. The NSPE Code's requirement under provision I.6 that engineers conduct themselves honorably and responsibly encompasses the formative modeling obligation that senior engineers bear toward those in their charge. Engineer W's use of Engineer Intern D as the instrument of a policy violation — shielded by an offer to sign off — exposes a junior engineer at the most formative moment of his professional development to a corrupting model: that policy violations are acceptable when the cause is sympathetic, that indirect communication can launder unethical directives, and that supervisor sign-off transfers moral responsibility. Each of these lessons, if internalized, would degrade Engineer Intern D's professional integrity across his entire career. The mentorship failure is compounded by the power asymmetry: Engineer Intern D, dependent on Engineer W's supervision and professional endorsement as he approaches licensure, faces heightened pressure to comply. Engineer W's exploitation of that asymmetry — however unintentionally — represents a failure of the duty to support and protect the professional formation of subordinate engineers, a duty that is implicit in the Code's broader mandate of honorable and responsible professional conduct.
In response to Q201: The tension between the Public Welfare Paramount principle and the Faithful Agent and Procurement Integrity obligations is real but ultimately resolvable in favor of the latter. The public benefit to Shadyvale — a $700,000 reduction in water main replacement cost — is genuine and not trivial. However, the means by which Engineer W proposes to achieve that benefit involve covert diversion of DOT funds through design manipulation, which violates the DOT's cost-allocation policy, deceives the DOT as the institutional steward of public funds, and sets a precedent that undermines the integrity of public infrastructure procurement. The Public Welfare Paramount principle does not authorize engineers to achieve public benefits through deceptive or policy-circumventing means; it requires that public welfare be served through honest, transparent, and lawful professional conduct. Furthermore, the DOT's betterment policy is itself a public welfare instrument: it ensures that highway project funds are allocated to highway purposes and that municipalities bear the cost of improvements that benefit them specifically, thereby protecting the broader taxpaying public from subsidizing local utility upgrades through highway budgets. Engineer W's invocation of public welfare for Shadyvale therefore pits one public interest against another, and the resolution must favor the transparent, policy-compliant pathway — including open advocacy for a hardship exception — over covert fund diversion.
In response to Q202: The tension between Engineer W's sympathy for Shadyvale's financial constraints and his DOT employer obligations is a genuine moral tension, but it is one that the NSPE Code resolves through the principle of transparent advocacy rather than covert policy circumvention. Had Engineer W formally petitioned DOT leadership or the relevant state authority to amend the betterment policy, create a hardship exception for financially constrained municipalities, or seek legislative authorization for cost-sharing arrangements in cases of genuine public health need, he would have served Shadyvale's interests without violating his faithful agent obligation, without deceiving the DOT, and without corrupting Engineer Intern D's professional formation. This transparent advocacy pathway was practically available: the case facts establish that Engineer W possessed knowledge of Shadyvale's situation, the DOT policy, and the design options — precisely the information needed to frame a formal advocacy request. The pathway was also professionally obligatory: Code provision I.4 requires faithful agency to the employer, and the appropriate response to a perceived injustice in employer policy is transparent advocacy through legitimate channels, not unilateral circumvention. Engineer W's failure to pursue this pathway — and his choice instead of indirect directive and sign-off cover — reveals that the ethical violation was not the product of an impossible dilemma but of a choice to achieve a sympathetic outcome through impermissible means.
In response to Q203: The tension between the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition and the Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation is resolved by the clarity of the policy violation at issue. The epistemic humility principle — which counsels interns to defer to supervisory judgment in matters of professional discretion — applies where a supervisor's directive reflects a reasonable exercise of engineering judgment within a range of permissible options. It does not apply where the directive unambiguously violates a clear written policy, as is the case here. State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts be paid for as part of highway projects; Engineer Intern D has already produced a compliant design demonstrating that the conflict is avoidable; and Engineer W's directive is explicitly aimed at manufacturing an artificial conflict to circumvent that policy. In this context, there is no genuine epistemic uncertainty for Engineer Intern D to defer to supervisory resolution. The Subordinate Complicity Prohibition therefore governs: Engineer Intern D must refuse to execute the policy-violating revision. The Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation retains relevance not as a reason to comply but as a reason to escalate — to bring the conflict to higher DOT authority rather than resolving it unilaterally through silent refusal. The calibration for an unlicensed intern facing a clearly policy-violating directive from a senior engineer is therefore: refuse compliance, name the conflict explicitly, and escalate through available institutional channels.
In response to Q204: Engineer W's offer to sign off on the revised design simultaneously constitutes an abdication of genuine responsible charge review and a mechanism to obscure the policy violation from DOT institutional oversight, creating a direct conflict between the Responsible Charge Engagement principle and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle — but this conflict is not a genuine tension requiring resolution; it is a compound violation. Responsible charge requires Engineer W to actively review work for policy compliance and to ensure that designs submitted under his authority conform to applicable standards. By offering to sign off on a design he knows to be policy-violating, Engineer W is not exercising responsible charge — he is inverting it, using the authority of his signature to certify compliance he knows does not exist. This simultaneously violates Code provision I.3's requirement of objective and truthful professional representations and provision I.5's prohibition on deceptive acts. The sign-off offer is therefore not a case where two legitimate principles pull in opposite directions; it is a case where the appearance of responsible charge authority is weaponized to achieve the opposite of what that authority is meant to ensure. The institutional harm is compounded because Engineer W's signature would cause DOT reviewers to rely on a false certification of policy compliance, depriving the institution of the oversight opportunity that the responsible charge requirement is designed to create.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Intern D's duty to act as a faithful agent of the DOT holds unconditionally in this case, and benevolent motive cannot serve as a moral justification for revising the design to artificially impact the old water main. The Kantian framework is particularly illuminating here: the maxim 'an engineer may artificially manufacture a utility conflict in a public highway design in order to shift costs to the highway project budget when the municipality cannot afford the true cost of the improvement' cannot be universalized without destroying the integrity of public infrastructure cost-allocation systems entirely. If every engineer were permitted to manipulate designs to achieve sympathetic cost outcomes for financially constrained municipalities, the DOT betterment policy — and analogous policies across all public agencies — would become unenforceable, public funds would be systematically diverted from their authorized purposes, and the institutional trust that makes public engineering possible would be undermined. The categorical nature of the faithful agent duty means that Engineer Intern D's awareness of Shadyvale's genuine financial hardship, while morally relevant as context, cannot function as a justification for the design revision. The NSPE Code's provision I.4 does not contain a hardship exception, and the Board's conclusion that compliance with the directive would be unethical is fully consistent with the deontological analysis: the duty holds regardless of the sympathetic outcome it forecloses.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate benefit to Shadyvale residents of a $700,000 cost reduction does not outweigh the harms of covert DOT fund diversion, policy circumvention, and the corrupting precedent set for Engineer Intern D's professional formation, and the revised design cannot be justified on net-outcome grounds. The consequentialist calculus must account for harms beyond the immediate transaction. First, the $700,000 diverted from DOT highway funds represents a real cost to the broader public — taxpayers who funded the highway project for highway purposes — not a costless benefit to Shadyvale. Second, the precedent established by a successful covert policy circumvention creates systemic harm: it signals to other engineers that sympathetic outcomes justify deceptive means, erodes the integrity of public procurement, and invites replication across other projects and jurisdictions. Third, the harm to Engineer Intern D's professional formation — exposure at the most formative moment of his career to a model of policy circumvention through indirect directives and sign-off cover — carries long-term costs that are difficult to quantify but real and serious. Fourth, the institutional harm to DOT oversight mechanisms — which depend on engineers' honest representations in responsible charge certifications — is a systemic harm that compounds across every future project. When these harms are aggregated and compared against the genuine but localized benefit to Shadyvale, the net-outcome calculus does not support the revised design, particularly given that the transparent advocacy pathway could have achieved the same public benefit without the associated harms.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer W's indirect communication of a policy-circumventing directive reveals deficiencies in the virtues of honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom that compound the ethical violation beyond mere rule-breaking. A virtuous senior public engineer, confronted with a genuine tension between employer policy and a municipality's financial hardship, would exercise practical wisdom by identifying the transparent advocacy pathway — formally petitioning for a policy exception — rather than resorting to design manipulation. The choice of indirection is itself a virtue failure: it reflects a disposition to achieve desired outcomes through oblique means rather than honest engagement, which is the antithesis of the integrity that Code provision I.6 requires. Furthermore, Engineer W's offer to sign off on the revised design — framed as a gesture of personal responsibility — is in virtue terms an act of moral cowardice rather than courage: it uses the appearance of accountability to shield a policy violation from institutional scrutiny rather than openly defending the decision to DOT leadership. The virtue ethics analysis also illuminates the mentorship dimension: a virtuous senior engineer models the professional character he wishes to cultivate in subordinates. Engineer W's conduct models precisely the character deficiencies — indirection, policy circumvention, and the use of authority to launder ethical violations — that the profession most needs to prevent in its formative members.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Intern D bears fully independent ethical responsibility for refusing the policy-violating directive regardless of Engineer W's sign-off promise, and the Kantian universalizability test confirms this. The proposed maxim — 'an engineering intern may comply with a supervisor's directive to execute a policy-violating design when the supervisor accepts personal responsibility for the outcome' — fails the universalizability test decisively. If universalized, this maxim would create a systematic mechanism by which senior engineers could launder policy violations through subordinates simply by offering to sign off, effectively nullifying the independent ethical obligations of every engineer in a subordinate position. The result would be a profession in which ethical responsibility is entirely hierarchical — concentrated at the top and absent at every other level — which is precisely the structure the NSPE Code's individual obligations are designed to prevent. Code provision I.4's faithful agent obligation and provision I.5's prohibition on deceptive acts are stated in terms that apply to each engineer individually; they do not contain a supervisor-authorization exception. Engineer Intern D's independent culpability is therefore not diminished by Engineer W's sign-off promise; it is, if anything, clarified by it, because the promise makes explicit that Engineer W knows the design is policy-violating and is seeking to use Engineer Intern D's execution of it as a mechanism to achieve the violation while distributing the appearance of responsibility.
In response to Q401: Had Engineer W pursued transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning the DOT or state legislature to amend the betterment policy or create a hardship exception for municipalities like Shadyvale — the ethical violations identified by the Board would have been avoided entirely, and this pathway was both practically available and professionally obligatory. The case facts establish that Engineer W possessed all the information necessary to frame a compelling advocacy request: a consultant's confirmation of the water main's condition and inadequacy, Shadyvale's documented inability to afford the full replacement cost, and the specific cost differential that a policy exception would produce. A formal petition to DOT leadership or the relevant legislative authority would have been transparent, honest, and consistent with Engineer W's faithful agent obligation — it would have placed the decision about whether to make an exception to the betterment policy with the institutional actors who have authority to make that decision, rather than unilaterally circumventing the policy through design manipulation. The transparent advocacy pathway was professionally obligatory because Code provision I.4 requires faithful agency to the employer, and the appropriate response to a perceived injustice in employer policy is advocacy through legitimate channels. Engineer W's failure to pursue this pathway — and his choice of indirect directive and sign-off cover instead — is therefore not merely an ethical violation but a failure to exercise the practical wisdom and institutional courage that the Code requires of senior public engineers.
In response to Q402: If Engineer Intern D had immediately escalated Engineer W's indirect directive to a higher DOT authority rather than either complying or refusing in silence, this escalation would have satisfied all of Engineer Intern D's ethical obligations and would have created precisely the institutional accountability that Engineer W's indirect communication was designed to avoid. The escalation pathway satisfies the non-complicity obligation by ensuring Engineer Intern D does not execute the policy-violating revision; it satisfies the faithful agent obligation by protecting the DOT's cost-allocation policy from circumvention; and it satisfies the complete and unfiltered upward reporting obligation by ensuring that DOT institutional authority is informed of the policy conflict and can exercise oversight. The counterfactual also illuminates the strategic function of Engineer W's indirection: by conveying the directive in an indirect, veiled manner rather than through a direct written order, Engineer W created ambiguity that could discourage escalation — an intern who is uncertain whether he has correctly understood the directive may be reluctant to escalate for fear of mischaracterizing a supervisor's intent. This is precisely why the indirect communication itself constitutes a deceptive act under Code provision I.5: it is designed to achieve the policy-circumventing outcome while suppressing the institutional accountability mechanisms that a direct written order would trigger. Engineer Intern D's obligation to name the conflict explicitly and escalate is therefore not merely a best practice but a necessary response to the specific deceptive mechanism Engineer W employed.
In response to Q403: If the water main had been genuinely unavoidable — if the highway alignment truly could not have been designed to avoid impacting it — the same design outcome would have been ethically permissible under DOT policy, and this counterfactual illuminates precisely why the artificial manufacture of a utility conflict is the core ethical violation rather than the cost outcome itself. The DOT betterment policy explicitly permits payment for unavoidable utility conflicts as part of highway projects; it is only avoidable conflicts — those that the engineer has the design freedom to prevent — that must be treated as betterments paid for by the municipality. The ethical violation in this case is not that Shadyvale would receive a cost benefit, nor that the water main would be replaced, nor even that DOT funds would be used for water main work. The violation is that Engineer Intern D has already demonstrated through his compliant design that the conflict is avoidable, and Engineer W is directing him to artificially manufacture the appearance of unavoidability in order to shift costs to the DOT budget in violation of policy. This counterfactual therefore clarifies that the Board's conclusions are not about the outcome — water main replacement at DOT expense — but about the integrity of the process by which that outcome is achieved. An engineer who honestly determines that a utility conflict is unavoidable and designs accordingly is acting with full integrity; an engineer who manufactures a fictitious conflict to achieve the same cost outcome is committing a deceptive act regardless of the sympathetic motivation.
The most fundamental principle tension in this case — between the Public Welfare Paramount principle invoked on Shadyvale's behalf and the Faithful Agent Obligation owed to the DOT — is resolved decisively in favor of the Faithful Agent Obligation, but not because public welfare is unimportant. Rather, the resolution turns on the distinction between ends and means: the public welfare benefit to Shadyvale is real, but it is achievable through legitimate channels such as transparent institutional advocacy, policy exception requests, or legislative amendment. Because an ethical pathway to the same public benefit exists, the covert diversion of DOT funds through design manipulation cannot be justified by invoking public welfare. This case teaches that the Public Welfare Paramount principle does not license deception or policy circumvention when transparent alternatives are available; it is a principle that governs the priority of outcomes, not a blanket override of the means by which those outcomes are pursued.
The Honesty in Professional Representations principle and the Responsible Charge Engagement principle, which might appear to operate independently, are shown in this case to be mutually reinforcing and simultaneously violated by a single act: Engineer W's offer to personally sign off on the revised design. That offer is simultaneously an abdication of genuine responsible charge review — because Engineer W is not independently verifying policy compliance but rather ratifying a known policy violation — and a mechanism of deception, because the sign-off functions institutionally as a representation that the design is policy-compliant when Engineer W knows it is not. This case teaches that when a senior engineer's sign-off is offered not as the product of honest review but as a shield for a subordinate executing a policy-circumventing directive, the sign-off itself becomes a deceptive act, and the Responsible Charge Engagement principle and the Honesty principle collapse into a single compound violation rather than two separate ones.
The tension between the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition — which bars Engineer Intern D from executing the policy-violating revision — and the Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation — which counsels deference to supervisory judgment — is resolved by recognizing that the deference owed to supervisory judgment is calibrated to the clarity of the policy violation, not to the seniority of the supervisor. Where, as here, the DOT betterment policy is unambiguous and Engineer Intern D himself produced the initial policy-compliant design with full awareness of that policy, there is no genuine epistemic uncertainty about whether the revised design would violate policy. The indirectness of Engineer W's communication does not create ambiguity about the substance of the directive; it merely obscures accountability. Consequently, the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition prevails over any residual deference obligation, and Engineer Intern D's independent ethical culpability for executing the revision is not diminished by Engineer W's sign-off promise. This case further teaches that the Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation constraint is not merely a formal rule but reflects the deeper principle that ethical responsibility in engineering is personal and non-transferable: a subordinate who knowingly executes a policy-violating design cannot launder that culpability through a supervisor's acceptance of formal responsibility.
The Procurement Integrity principle and the Faithful Agent Obligation, taken together, establish that Engineer W's conduct represents not merely a sympathetic policy deviation but a structural betrayal of the public trust embedded in the DOT's cost-allocation framework. The betterment policy exists precisely to prevent the covert reallocation of highway project funds to utility upgrades that municipalities should finance independently — a reallocation that, if normalized, would systematically distort infrastructure budgeting and undermine the integrity of competitive procurement and legislative appropriation processes. Engineer W's altruistic motive does not mitigate this structural harm; if anything, the case teaches that altruistically motivated procurement violations are more insidious than self-interested ones, because they are harder to detect, more likely to attract sympathetic complicity from subordinates, and more corrosive to the institutional norm that policy compliance is non-negotiable regardless of the perceived worthiness of the beneficiary.
The Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation surfaces in this case as a distinct ethical dimension that the Board's explicit conclusions do not fully address. The principle tension between Engineer W's role as a senior engineer modeling professional conduct for a pre-licensure intern and his decision to issue an indirect, policy-circumventing directive is not merely an aggravating circumstance — it is a separate ethical failure. Engineer W's conduct exposes Engineer Intern D, at the most formative moment of his professional development, to the lesson that policy compliance is negotiable when a supervisor has sympathetic motives and is willing to accept formal responsibility. This corrupts the very professional formation that the PE licensure process is designed to ensure. The case teaches that the Formative Mentorship Integrity Obligation is not subordinate to the Faithful Agent and Honesty violations but operates in parallel: a senior engineer who would not personally execute a policy-circumventing design bears a heightened, not diminished, ethical obligation to refrain from directing an unlicensed subordinate to execute it in his place.
DOT project enters design phase; Engineer W assigned as senior engineer; project delegation to Engineer Intern D follows; geographic overlap with water main corridor becomes operationally relevant
Concurrent with or shortly after water main assessment; project planning phase
The State Department of Transportation independently initiated a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale, creating a concurrent infrastructure project in the same geographic corridor as the deficient water main. This convergence of two independent projects in the same location is the exogenous event that makes cost-shifting manipulation conceivable.
DOT construction activities overlaps Shadyvale water main replacement need
Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking. Perhaps that efficiency would sufficiently decrease the scope of Shadyvale's work to make it affordable.
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
Should Engineer Intern D revise the design to artificially impact the old water main in response to Engineer W's indirect directive, given that the revision would violate DOT cost-allocation policy and divert approximately $700,000 of public funds to Shadyvale?
Engineer Intern D's decision whether to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main in response to Engineer W's indirect directive
Decline to revise the design and explicitly name the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict to Engineer W, then escalate the directive to higher DOT authority if Engineer W persists
Revise the design as directed in reliance on Engineer W's sign-off promise, treating the supervisor's acceptance of formal responsibility as sufficient ethical cover for the intern's execution of the revision
Decline to revise the design without escalating, treating silent non-compliance as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligation while deferring to Engineer W to resolve the policy question through other means
Engineer Intern D Policy Violating Design Revision Refusal Shadyvale
Would it be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on the artificially revised design, and does his willingness to personally assume formal responsibility for the revision discharge his faithful agent, responsible charge, and honesty obligations under the NSPE Code?
Engineer W's decision whether to sign off on a design artificially revised to impact the old Shadyvale water main, and whether his offer to personally assume formal responsibility discharges his ethical obligations as a licensed DOT engineer
Refuse to sign off on the artificially revised design and instead formally petition DOT leadership or the relevant state authority for a hardship exception or policy amendment on Shadyvale's behalf
Sign off on the revised design on the basis that the water main's genuine deficiency and Shadyvale's financial hardship constitute sufficient public welfare grounds for a senior licensed engineer to exercise professional judgment in interpreting the unavoidability standard broadly
Sign off on the revised design while simultaneously documenting the public welfare rationale in the project record, treating the documented justification as satisfying the responsible charge and transparency obligations even if the revision technically exceeds policy
Engineer W Faithful Agent Obligation Violated DOT Policy Shadyvale
Does Engineer W's use of indirect, veiled language to convey the policy-violating design redirection directive constitute a distinct deceptive act under the NSPE Code, and does that indirection impose a heightened ethical burden on Engineer Intern D to recognize and resist the directive rather than treating the ambiguity as cover for compliance?
Engineer W's decision whether to communicate the design redirection directive to Engineer Intern D indirectly and obliquely rather than through a direct written order, and whether that indirection itself constitutes a deceptive act independent of the underlying policy circumvention
Recognize the indirect communication as ethically equivalent to a direct policy-violating directive, name the policy conflict explicitly to Engineer W, and refuse to treat the ambiguity of the communication as cover for compliance or as reducing the obligation to escalate
Seek explicit written clarification from Engineer W about whether the indirect comment constitutes a formal directive before treating it as a policy-violating order, deferring escalation until the directive's character is confirmed
Treat the indirect communication as an ambiguous supervisory suggestion rather than a confirmed directive, proceed with the original compliant design without escalating, and await a more explicit instruction before taking any further action
Engineer W Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Shadyvale
Does Engineer W's explicit offer to personally sign off on the revised design transfer ethical and professional responsibility from Engineer Intern D to Engineer W, or does Engineer Intern D retain independent ethical culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating regardless of the sign-off promise?
Engineer Intern D's decision whether Engineer W's sign-off promise transfers ethical responsibility away from the intern, and whether the intern retains independent culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating
Refuse to execute the policy-violating revision on the grounds that the sign-off promise does not discharge the intern's independent ethical obligation, and escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority regardless of Engineer W's offer to assume formal responsibility
Execute the revision in reliance on Engineer W's sign-off promise, treating the licensed supervisor's acceptance of formal professional responsibility as a complete transfer of ethical accountability that discharges the intern's independent obligations
Execute the technical revision as directed while simultaneously documenting personal objections in writing to Engineer W, treating the written objection as sufficient to preserve independent ethical standing while deferring to the licensed engineer's final professional judgment on policy compliance
Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
What affirmative obligation does Engineer Intern D have to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and does the fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam diminish, preserve, or heighten the standard of professional courage and completeness of reporting expected of him?
Engineer Intern D's affirmative obligation to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and whether the intern's unlicensed pre-PE status affects the standard of professional courage and the scope of the escalation duty
Escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority with complete and unfiltered reporting of all material facts — including the indirectness of the communication, the financial magnitude of the cost shift, and the sign-off promise — after first raising the conflict directly with Engineer W
Decline to revise the design without escalating to higher authority, treating silent non-compliance as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligation and deferring to Engineer W to resolve the policy question through whatever channels he chooses
Raise the policy conflict directly with Engineer W in writing and await his response before deciding whether to escalate further, treating the written exchange with the immediate supervisor as a sufficient first step that may resolve the conflict without requiring upward reporting
Engineer Intern D Indirect Policy Violating Directive Escalation Shadyvale
Was transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning the DOT or state legislature to amend the betterment policy or create a hardship exception for municipalities like Shadyvale — both practically available and professionally obligatory for Engineer W, such that his failure to pursue it and his choice of indirect directive and sign-off cover instead constitutes a compounded ethical failure that cannot be redeemed by benevolent motive?
Engineer W's decision whether to pursue transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning DOT leadership or the state legislature for a hardship exception or policy amendment — as the ethically obligatory alternative to covert policy circumvention through design manipulation
Formally petition DOT leadership or the relevant state authority for a hardship exception or policy amendment on Shadyvale's behalf, presenting the consultant's findings and the financial hardship documentation as the basis for a transparent institutional request
Proceed with the indirect directive and sign-off cover on the grounds that the transparent advocacy pathway would be practically futile given DOT's likely denial of any exception, and that the genuine public health need of Shadyvale's residents justifies the covert approach as the only effective means of achieving the public benefit
Informally advocate to DOT supervisors for Shadyvale's situation without filing a formal petition, treating the informal advocacy as a sufficient discharge of the transparency obligation while preserving the option to pursue the design manipulation if the informal approach yields no result
Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
Review session becomes the transmission point for unethical direction; Engineer Intern D receives implicit instruction to revise compliant design to intentionally impact water main; professional relationship is compromised
Design development review phase; after compliant design produced, before revised design
A design development review took place in which Engineer W and Engineer Intern D engaged with the compliant design, creating the occasion through which Engineer W indirectly communicated the directive to revise the design to intentionally impact the water main. This review session is the event that transforms a routine design process into an ethically compromised one.
Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
Engineer Intern D in evaluating how to respond to Engineer W's indirect instruction
Governs Engineer Intern D's ethical options when receiving an indirect instruction from a supervising engineer to revise a design in a manner that would violate DOT policy, including the conditions under which D may ethically refuse and the professional consequences of doing so
Engineer Adam Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition
Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
Engineer Adam needed the capability to recognize that the artfully misleading statement made to Engineer Baker during firm sale negotiations — though technically not a direct lie — constituted an ethical violation by creating a false impression, and to refrain from such conduct.
Engineering firm sale negotiation between Engineer Adam and Engineer Baker
Engineer Adam's artfully misleading statement to Engineer Baker in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations
Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer -- Chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary who, in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, made an artfully misleading statement
Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Non-Deception Constraint — Firm Sale Negotiation
Engineer Adam used Engineer Mary's prior expression of interest — which had been definitively withdrawn — as a false negotiating pressure tactic, cited as precedent for the truthfulness constraint applicable to Engineer W in the present case.
Engineer Adam was prohibited from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively decided she was not interested in purchasing the subsidiary, as this statement was artfully misleading and intentionally designed to obscure the truth to advance Engineer Adam's negotiating interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 3; BER Case 05-5; BER Case 86-6
Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
During the negotiation for the sale of the engineering subsidiary
'This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.'
Had Engineer Adam disclosed the full circumstances relating to his conversation with Engineer Mary, the Board's conclusion for Engineer Adam would have been different.
the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale
Engineer Adam failed to apply the capability to recognize that his statement about 'another company' expressing interest was artfully constructed to create a false impression of competitive urgency in Engineer Baker's mind
Engineer Adam made an artfully misleading statement in firm sale negotiations to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, as analyzed in BER Case 05-5
Telling Engineer Baker 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest, creating a false impression of active competitive interest
Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested'
Had Engineer Adam disclosed the full circumstances relating to his conversation with Engineer Mary, the Board's conclusion for Engineer Adam would have been different
the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth'
Engineer Baker Engineering Firm Acquisition Prospect
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-5', 'role_in_case': 'Negotiation counterpart; recipient of misleading statement'}
Prospective buyer of the engineering subsidiary being negotiated by Engineer Adam, who was the target of Engineer Adam's artfully misleading statement about competing interest, and whose stalling in negotiations prompted the deceptive conduct.
{'type': 'negotiation_counterpart', 'target': 'Engineer Adam'}
Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker
Engineer Charlie Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining
Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Capability
Engineer Charlie needed the capability to recognize that the city council chairperson's offer to hire additional inspectors in exchange for concurrence with inadequate regulatory measures constituted an impermissible political bargain, and to refuse to subordinate safety reporting standards to that bargain.
City building inspection program under budget cutbacks and political pressure
Engineer Charlie's agreement with the city council chairperson to compromise safety reporting standards in exchange for resource allocation
Engineer Charlie Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure -- Director of a city building department who, facing budget cutbacks and inability to perform adequate inspections, agreed with a city council chairperson
Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Building Inspection Safety Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer Charlie agreed to a political bargain trading concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance for resources to hire additional building inspection staff, cited as precedent in the present case.
Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer Charlie was prohibited from agreeing to concur on a grandfathering ordinance permitting specified buildings to be exempted from current code enforcement requirements as a condition of receiving authorization to hire additional code officials, establishing that the political trade-off logic does not apply to safety standard compromise.
The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process).
At the time of the city council chairman negotiation
the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety
Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Non-Compromise Building Inspection
Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Capability
Engineer Charlie lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that the political trade-off framing — better inspection process versus consistent code enforcement — did not render the compromise of professional ethics obligations permissible
Engineer Charlie agreed to a political trade-off that compromised consistent code enforcement in exchange for resources to improve building inspection capacity, as analyzed in BER Case 98-5
Agreement with city council chairman's bargain to concur on a grandfathering ordinance in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials
The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process)
Engineer Intern D Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition
Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
Engineer Intern D needed the capability to recognize that Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help Shadyvale residents did not render the policy-violating directive ethically permissible, and to refuse cooperation on that basis
Engineer Intern D faced pressure to cooperate with a policy-violating directive motivated by genuine sympathy for an impoverished community
Recognition that Engineer W's praiseworthy motivation to help impoverished Shadyvale residents did not justify covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds
benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy
Engineer Intern D Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal
Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal Capability
Engineer Intern D needed the capability to recognize that cooperating with Engineer W's directive would result in the covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale without authorization, and to refuse participation on that basis
Engineer Intern D faced a scenario in which cooperation with a supervisory directive would result in covert diversion of public funds that 'no one else would ever know' about
Recognition that implementing the policy-violating design revision would covertly divert public agency funds without authorization or transparency
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution
Engineer Intern D Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration
Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration Capability
Engineer Intern D needed to correctly calibrate the form and intensity of dissent from Engineer W's indirect directive — distinguishing between the ethical obligation to refuse the policy-violating revision and the appropriate escalation pathway — while assessing career implications and selecting the dissent pathway most likely to achieve ethical objectives.
Engineer intern dissent from supervisor's policy-violating directive
Engineer Intern D's position as an engineer intern about to sit for the PE exam, facing a directive from a senior engineer
Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
Engineer Intern D Faithful Agent DOT Policy Compliance
Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Capability
Engineer Intern D's faithful agent obligation to the State DOT required applying knowledge of the DOT's cost-allocation policy to preserve the integrity of the policy-compliant design and to refuse revisions that would circumvent it.
Faithful agent obligation to State DOT as client and employer
Engineer Intern D's initial policy-compliant design and subsequent receipt of the policy-violating directive
State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
Engineer Intern D Fictitious Utility Conflict Design Manipulation Recognition
Fictitious Utility Conflict Design Manipulation Recognition Capability
Engineer Intern D possessed the capability to recognize that Engineer W's directive would require artificially manufacturing a utility conflict — where none need exist — for the purpose of shifting water main replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT in violation of the agency's cost-allocation policy.
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design
Engineer Intern D's design that successfully avoided the utility conflict, demonstrating awareness that the conflict was avoidable and therefore any resulting conflict would be fictitious
Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size.
Engineer Intern D Graduated Escalation Navigation
Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
Engineer Intern D needed to navigate graduated escalation pathways — from refusal of the directive, to escalation to appropriate DOT agency authority — in a careful, sensitive manner that fulfilled professional obligations while respecting institutional channels.
Escalation of policy conflict within DOT organizational hierarchy
Obligation to escalate Engineer W's indirect policy-violating directive to appropriate agency authority
Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate to appropriate agency authority.
Engineer Intern D Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Detection
Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Detection Capability
Engineer Intern D possessed the capability to detect that Engineer W's indirect manner of communicating the design revision directive was designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict, and to recognize that this indirectness did not diminish the ethical significance of the directive.
Design development review of Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
Receipt of Engineer W's indirectly communicated directive during design development review
Engineer Intern D Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Full Reporting
Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Capability
Engineer Intern D was obligated to exercise materiality judgment restraint when escalating the policy conflict — reporting all material facts including the indirect nature of Engineer W's communication, the cost-shifting mechanism, and the DOT policy at issue — without filtering or withholding information based on personal judgments about what the agency authority needed to know.
Escalation of policy conflict to DOT agency authority
Obligation to report completely and without filtering when escalating Engineer W's indirect directive to appropriate agency authority
Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, to refrain from independently filtering or withholding information
Engineer Intern D Objectivity and Truthfulness Canon 3 Compliance
Engineer Intern D demonstrated ethical reasoning capability by adhering to DOT policy in the original design, consistent with Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in the original design was recognized by the Board as consistent with Canon 3 requirements
Independently producing a policy-compliant design that avoided the old water main, consistent with Canon 3 objectivity and truthfulness requirements
Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
Engineer Intern D PE exam after current project events
Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam, exam is imminent but has not yet occurred during the case events
Engineer Intern D Policy-Compliant Design Preservation Truthfulness Constraint — Shadyvale
The BER explicitly found that Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in avoiding the old water main was in accord with Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, establishing that the truthfulness constraint independently prohibited cooperation with the policy-circumventing directive.
Engineer Intern D was constrained by the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness to preserve the policy-compliant design that avoided the existing water main, prohibiting cooperation with Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would create a false impression of an unavoidable utility conflict.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 3; Present BER Case Analysis
Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
Upon receipt of Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the Shadyvale DOT project design
helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth
Engineer Intern D Policy-Violating Directive Recognition
Policy-Violating Directive Recognition Capability
Engineer Intern D possessed the capability to recognize that Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design so that the old water main would be impacted constituted a policy-violating directive that must be refused, and that Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' did not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical responsibility.
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design development review
Engineer Intern D's independent production of a policy-compliant design avoiding the water main, and subsequent receipt of Engineer W's indirect directive to revise it
Engineer Intern D Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge
Engineer Intern D possessed knowledge of the State DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be paid for as part of highway projects, and that betterment work must be paid for by the local municipality — enabling Engineer Intern D to recognize that the proposed design revision would violate this policy.
Engineer Intern D's initial design that avoided conflicts with existing utilities, consistent with DOT policy
State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
Engineer Intern D initial design (avoiding water main) before Engineer W instruction to revise design (impacting water main)
Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities... During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
Engineer Intern D initial design (avoiding water main)
Engineer W instruction to revise design (impacting water main)
Engineer Intern D initial design layout before design development review
Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout... During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised.
Engineer Mary Declined Acquisition Interest Stakeholder
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-5', 'role_in_case': 'Misrepresented third party whose declined interest was used deceptively'}
A licensed engineer who expressed initial interest in purchasing the engineering subsidiary but definitively declined further interest, whose earlier expression of interest was subsequently misrepresented by Engineer Adam to Engineer Baker as ongoing competing interest to pressure the negotiation.
{'type': 'misrepresented_by', 'target': 'Engineer Adam'}
Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary
referring to Engineer Mary's earlier interest, Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary'
Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Exculpation Policy Violation Constraint — Shadyvale
The BER explicitly acknowledged Engineer W's altruistic motivation and practical awareness of project efficiencies while nonetheless concluding that benevolent motives do not exculpate the ethical violation.
Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale did not render ethically permissible the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds through artificial design manipulation, establishing that benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical and that the Board's censure was not affected by Engineer W's praiseworthy intentions.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5, 6; Present BER Case Analysis
The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main.
Throughout the Shadyvale DOT project design phase
However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical.
the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy.
the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do.
Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Deficit
Engineer W lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that his altruistic motivation to help Shadyvale residents did not render the policy-violating directive ethically permissible
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design based on altruistic motivation to help Shadyvale, without recognizing that benevolent motives cannot justify ethical violations
Failure to recognize that praiseworthy motivation to help impoverished Shadyvale residents did not justify directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision
The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main
However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do
Engineer W Competing Stakeholder Interest Faithful Agent Boundary
Competing Stakeholder Interest Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize that his sympathies for Shadyvale residents were causing him to place Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests in violation of his faithful agent obligations as a DOT employee
Engineer W, as a DOT employee with no contractual relationship with Shadyvale, directed a design revision that subordinated DOT interests to Shadyvale's interests
Directing Engineer Intern D to implement a design revision that placed Shadyvale's financial interests above the DOT's cost-allocation policy interests, despite having no contractual relationship with Shadyvale
Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT
Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving?
Engineer W Covert Fund Diversion Formational Harm Prohibition — Engineer Intern D
Engineer W supervised Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career and directed the intern to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner that would covertly divert $700,000 of DOT funds, with the BER specifically noting the formational significance of this lesson.
Covert Fund Diversion Formational Harm Prohibition Constraint
Engineer W was prohibited from directing Engineer Intern D to participate in or implement a covert diversion of DOT funds through design manipulation, not only because such diversion violated DOT policy and professional ethics, but also because directing an early-career intern to witness and participate in such conduct caused independent formational harm to Engineer Intern D's professional ethical development at a critical career stage.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 6; BER Case Analysis on Formational Impact; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
Throughout Engineer Intern D's supervised work on the Shadyvale DOT project
Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No.
Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
Engineer W Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal Deficit
Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize that directing Engineer Intern D to implement the policy-violating design revision would result in the covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale without authorization
Engineer W directed a design manipulation that would have resulted in covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds to Shadyvale without agency authorization or transparency
Directing Engineer Intern D to revise the design in a manner that would covertly divert public agency funds to a non-client municipality
secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No
Engineer W Faithful Agent DOT Employer Policy Compliance Constraint — Shadyvale
Engineer W had no contractual relationship with Shadyvale yet directed a design outcome that placed Shadyvale's financial interests above the DOT's policy interests, violating the faithful agent obligation.
Engineer W was constrained by Canon 4's faithful agent obligation to act as a trustee of the State DOT — his employer — by adhering to the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy, prohibiting the placement of Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests through policy-circumventing design manipulation, regardless of the absence of a personal financial benefit to Engineer W.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 4; Present BER Case Analysis
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
Throughout Engineer W's employment as a senior DOT engineer on the Shadyvale project
Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale. However, Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
Engineer W Financial Sympathy Non-Subordination of Policy Deficiency
Financial Sympathy Non-Subordination of Policy Capability
Engineer W lacked or failed to exercise the capability to resist the pressure of Shadyvale's genuine financial hardship — the unaffordable $750,000 replacement cost — and instead allowed sympathy for Shadyvale's situation to motivate a directive that would circumvent the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy.
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project cost-allocation dispute
Engineer W's directive to revise the design to impact the water main, motivated by the fact that Shadyvale could afford only $50,000 rather than $750,000
Engineer W Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling
Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling Capability
Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize the formative professional impact of his conduct on Engineer Intern D's ethical development, instead modeling policy circumvention and indirect directive communication at the outset of the intern's career
Engineer W supervised Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career and modeled ethically impermissible conduct through indirect policy-violating directives
Failure to recognize that directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision would teach improper professional norms at a formative career stage
The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career
Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation
Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Capability
Engineer W was obligated to maintain the boundary between permissible design flexibility and impermissible aiding of policy circumvention through artificial design manipulation — specifically refraining from directing the artificial creation of a utility conflict to shift costs contrary to DOT policy.
DOT cost-allocation policy compliance in Shadyvale highway reconstruction project
Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design to impact the water main, which would constitute aiding circumvention of the DOT's cost-allocation policy
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious utility conflict
Engineer W Objectivity and Truthfulness Canon 3 Compliance
Engineer W failed to apply ethical reasoning capability to recognize that his directive to Engineer Intern D violated Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness by directing a design manipulation that misrepresented the nature of the utility conflict
Engineer W's conduct violated all four Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the engineering ethics code
Directing Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner inconsistent with Canon 3 objectivity and truthfulness requirements, as well as Canon 4 faithful agent obligations, Canon 5 deception avoidance, and Canon 6 profession protection
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession
All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked
Engineer W Political Trade-Off DOT Policy Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the existing water main, covertly diverting approximately $700,000 of DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale, motivated by altruistic concern for the impoverished municipality.
Engineer W was prohibited from treating the Shadyvale situation as a political trade-off in which DOT cost-allocation policy truthfulness could be compromised in exchange for achieving the public benefit of upgrading Shadyvale's water main, establishing that the logic of political compromise does not apply to core engineering ethical values including truthfulness and public fund integrity.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5, 6; BER Case 98-5; Present BER Case Analysis
The Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
Throughout the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design phase
As regards the present case, clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth.
Engineer W Political Trade-Off Truth Non-Compromise DOT Shadyvale
Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize that the political nature of the DOT-Shadyvale situation did not render compromise of professional truth and policy integrity obligations permissible
Engineer W operated in a politically charged situation involving an impoverished municipality and failed to recognize that professional truth and policy integrity obligations could not be compromised through political rationalization
Directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision in a politically motivated effort to help Shadyvale, without recognizing that the political context did not justify the ethics compromise
clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth
The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession
Engineer W Procurement Integrity Violation Recognition
Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
Engineer W needed to recognize and resist the rationalization that Shadyvale's financial hardship justified circumventing the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy — understanding that sympathetic circumstances do not justify policy violations and that the spirit of the policy requires compliance regardless of the financial consequences to the municipality.
DOT cost-allocation policy compliance and procurement integrity
Engineer W's failure to resist the rationalization that Shadyvale's $750,000 unaffordable cost justified the policy-circumventing design revision
Engineer W Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Deficiency
Engineer W, as the senior DOT engineer in responsible charge, possessed — but failed to apply — knowledge of the State DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy, instead directing a design revision that would violate that policy by artificially creating a utility conflict to shift costs to the DOT.
Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design to impact the old water main, contrary to DOT cost-allocation policy
Engineer W Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition — Shadyvale Water Main
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design that avoided the existing water main to instead artificially incorporate it, which would have caused the DOT to fund the water main replacement as an unavoidable conflict rather than requiring Shadyvale to pay for it as a betterment.
Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition Constraint
Engineer W was prohibited from directing Engineer Intern D to artificially design the Shadyvale DOT highway project to incorporate the existing water main — creating a fictitious unavoidable utility conflict — for the purpose of causing DOT funds to be expended on what DOT policy designated as a Shadyvale betterment, thereby covertly diverting approximately $700,000 of public DOT funds to benefit the municipality.
State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5; Present BER Case Analysis
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
During the design phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked.
Engineer W Responsible Charge Policy Compliance Active Review Deficiency
Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
Engineer W failed to exercise the responsible charge active engagement capability by delegating the design to Engineer Intern D and then, rather than conducting substantive policy compliance review, indirectly directing a policy-violating revision and offering merely to 'sign off' on the result — substituting post-hoc ratification for genuine responsible charge.
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project responsible charge
Engineer W's delegation of design to Engineer Intern D followed by indirect directive and promise to 'sign off' rather than active policy compliance review
Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project. Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D.
Engineer W Transparent Institutional Advocacy Pathway Identification
Transparent Institutional Advocacy Pathway Identification Capability
Engineer W failed to apply the capability to identify and pursue transparent institutional advocacy pathways — such as requesting joint meetings, escalating through chain of command, or facilitating grant applications — as ethical alternatives to covert policy circumvention
Engineer W had multiple available transparent advocacy pathways to help Shadyvale but instead chose covert policy circumvention through design manipulation
Failure to pursue available transparent advocacy alternatives before directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision
Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure
Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation
Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT
Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work
Engineer W Transparent Institutional Advocacy Substitution Mandate — Shadyvale Water Main
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to artificially incorporate the existing water main into the highway design rather than pursuing any of the multiple transparent pathways the BER identified as available and ethically permissible alternatives.
Transparent Institutional Advocacy Substitution Mandate Constraint
Engineer W was prohibited from pursuing the public benefit of upgrading Shadyvale's water main through covert design manipulation when multiple transparent, institutionally authorized advocacy pathways were available — including requesting a joint DOT-Shadyvale meeting, escalating through DOT chain of command, facilitating grant applications, and exploring construction efficiency sharing — establishing that the availability of these alternatives rendered covert circumvention ethically impermissible.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5; Present BER Case Analysis
Prior to and during the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design phase
Better approaches are available. For example, Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation. Or Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking.
Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work.
Engineer W Whose Interests Self-Assessment Faithful Agent Constraint — Shadyvale vs DOT
The BER explicitly posed the 'whose interests' question as a diagnostic tool for identifying Engineer W's ethical violation, noting that Engineer W had no contractual relationship with Shadyvale yet placed Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests.
Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint
Engineer W was required to affirmatively assess whose interests were being served by directing the design revision — the DOT employer, the travelling public, Shadyvale residents, or Engineer W personally — and was prohibited from proceeding with the policy-deviating directive once that self-assessment revealed that Shadyvale's interests were being placed above the DOT's interests in violation of the faithful agent obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 4 (Faithful Agent); BER Case 05-5; Present BER Case Analysis
it is appropriate to ask, 'Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving? Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
At the time Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise the Shadyvale DOT project design
Engineer W delegation of project to Engineer Intern D before Engineer Intern D initiates design layout
Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D... Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
Engineer W delegation of project to Engineer Intern D
Engineer Intern D initiates design layout
Engineer W sign-off offer after Engineer W direction to revise design
Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.', stated after directing the design revision
Professional engineering norms and state licensing boards
Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it'
Engineer W in supervising Engineer Intern D's design work
Governs Engineer W's obligations as supervising PE over Engineer Intern D, including the ethical limits of instructions given to supervised interns and the responsibility Engineer W assumes by stating 'I'll sign off on it'
Incomplete Disclosure to Supervisor Standard
Engineer Intern D in deciding how to respond to and report Engineer W's instruction
Governs Engineer Intern D's obligation to fully and accurately report the ethical concern raised by Engineer W's instruction to supervisors or appropriate authorities, without omitting material facts about the nature or intent of the instruction
Corruption of Engineer Intern D's professional formation by exposing a pre-licensure engineer to unethical supervisory direction
Creation of a false engineering record misrepresenting the conflict as unavoidable
Potential precedent undermining integrity of DOT cost-allocation processes
Risk of legal and professional liability for both Engineer W and Engineer Intern D
Violation of DOT policy and misallocation of DOT public funds
Altruistic concern for Shadyvale residents' welfare and access to safe water infrastructure, a morally relevant but insufficient justification
BER 05-5 analogy: engineers must not misrepresent project conditions to achieve favorable cost outcomes
BER 98-5 analogy: altruistic motivation does not excuse manipulation of institutional processes
Good ends do not justify unethical means in professional engineering practice
NSPE Code Canon 1: Engineers shall hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount: interpreted here as applying to the broader public, not only Shadyvale
NSPE Code Canon 5: Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts
Shift the majority of the water main replacement cost ($700,000) from Shadyvale to the DOT by engineering an 'unavoidable' conflict, reducing Shadyvale's share to an affordable $50,000 and enabling necessary infrastructure replacement
Supervisory ethics obligation: exploiting authority over a pre-licensure engineer to achieve an unethical end
Senior-level highway design authority and policy interpretation
Supervisory authority over design development review process
Understanding of DOT utility conflict cost-allocation mechanisms
Design development review phase, after Engineer Intern D's initial compliant design was submitted
Canon 1: Public welfare, misallocating DOT public funds undermines the broader taxpaying public's interest in honest fund stewardship
Canon 3: Objectivity and truthfulness, directing creation of a design record that misrepresents a manufactured conflict as unavoidable
Canon 4: Faithful agency to DOT employer, deliberately circumventing DOT cost-allocation policy
Canon 5: Deceptive conduct, indirect communication designed to obscure Engineer W's direct culpability while achieving the manipulated outcome
Fiduciary duty to DOT as employer and to the public as ultimate client of public infrastructure funds
Professional obligation not to engage in deceptive or fraudulent conduct in engineering practice
During design development review, Engineer W indirectly communicated to Engineer Intern D that the design should be revised to intentionally impact the water main, circumventing DOT policy on unavoidable utility conflicts. This was a deliberate supervisory directive intended to shift $700,000 in replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT.
Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3) → Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
During design development review, Engineer W indirectly communicated to Engineer Intern D that the design should be redirected, and as a direct outcome of Engineer W's redirection and sign-off offer, Engineer Intern D was placed in a position of ethical compromise
Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3)
Had Engineer W accepted the compliant design or provided transparent ethical justification for any design change, the intern would not have been exposed to ethical compromise
Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
Engineer W's decision to redirect the design away from the compliant approach
Engineer W's indirect rather than transparent communication style obscuring the ethical stakes
Engineer W's supervisory authority over Engineer Intern D
The existence of the already-completed compliant design creating a conflict point
Engineer W (Senior/Supervising Engineer)
Engineer W's supervisory redirection combined with the Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer (Action 4) together created sufficient conditions to place the intern in an ethical dilemma
Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Recognition — Engineer Intern D — Engineer W Communication
Engineer W communicated the policy-violating directive indirectly, in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT policy violation it would require, creating risk that Engineer Intern D might treat the indirectness as reducing ethical culpability for compliance.
Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Recognition Constraint
Engineer Intern D is constrained to recognize Engineer W's indirectly communicated directive to revise the design to impact the water main as ethically equivalent to an explicit policy-violating directive, and must respond with the same refusal and escalation obligations that would apply to an explicit directive.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Dissent Framework; BER Case 05-5 (artfully misleading statements violate ethics); NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 3
At the moment of receiving Engineer W's indirect communication during design development review
Engineer Intern D is now the active designer of record (under supervision); Engineer W holds supervisory and sign-off authority; professional formation relationship is formally established
Early project phase; immediately following Project Delegation to Intern action
As a direct result of Engineer W's delegation decision, Engineer Intern D became the responsible designer for the DOT highway reconstruction project, formally entering a supervisory relationship with Engineer W and acquiring design authority over a project that would later be manipulated. This is the outcome state created by the delegation action.
Engineer Intern D's professional formation is compromised; the intern now faces a binary choice between compliance with unethical direction and resistance to supervisory authority; whichever choice is made, the formational harm of exposure has already occurred
Concurrent with and following the design review session; before compliance decision
As a direct outcome of Engineer W's redirection and sign-off offer, Engineer Intern D was placed in a situation where compliance with a supervisor's directive required participation in a deliberate policy violation. This exposure to institutionally-sanctioned unethical practice constitutes a formational harm to the intern's professional development, identified explicitly in the case's Discussion section.
Intern Materiality Judgment Deferral — Engineer Intern D — Policy Conflict Escalation
Engineer Intern D, who is not yet licensed and is about to sit for the PE exam, lacks the professional qualification to independently assess which aspects of Engineer W's directive are most material to the agency authority's assessment of the situation.
Intern Materiality Assessment Incompetence Constraint
Engineer Intern D is constrained from independently filtering or withholding any material facts about Engineer W's directive when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, and must report all facts completely — including the indirect nature of the communication, the sign-off offer, and the full financial implications — without independently assessing which facts are most relevant.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Incomplete Disclosure to Supervisor Standard; Engineer Dissent Framework
At the time of escalating the policy conflict to appropriate DOT authority
Intern Professional Formation Ethical Modeling Constraint — Engineer W — Engineer Intern D
Engineer Intern D is described as being about to sit for the PE exam, placing them at a critical stage of professional formation where exposure to ethically questionable supervisory direction carries heightened formative harm.
Engineer W is constrained by the professional responsibility to model ethical conduct for Engineer Intern D — who is in active professional formation and about to sit for the PE exam — from directing the intern to participate in policy-circumventing design manipulation, as such direction causes direct harm to the intern's professional ethical formation at a critical developmental stage.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
Throughout Engineer W's supervisory relationship with Engineer Intern D on the Shadyvale DOT project
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer W and Engineer Intern D in evaluating professional obligations
Primary normative authority governing Engineer W's obligation to act in the public interest, avoid deception, and not direct Engineer Intern D to violate DOT policy; also governs Engineer Intern D's obligation to refuse unethical instructions and report the situation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 3 (Objectivity and Truthfulness)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer Intern D and Engineer W
Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness are cited to evaluate Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy and Engineer W's willingness to overlook it
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 4 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer W
Canon 4 is cited to evaluate Engineer W's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of the DOT employer
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 5 (Avoid Deception)
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with... Canon 5, to avoid deception
Canon 5 is cited to evaluate Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D as involving deception by obscuring the truth about DOT fund allocation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 6 (Honor, Reputation, and Usefulness of the Profession)
which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession
Canon 6 is cited as being challenged by Engineer W's conduct, which risks damaging the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession
Non-Deception DOT Policy Compliance — Engineer W — Indirect Communication
Engineer W's indirect communication of the directive was structured to avoid explicit acknowledgment that the design revision would violate DOT utility betterment policy — a form of deception by obscuring the truth about the policy implications of the directive.
Engineer W is constrained by the non-deception provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics from communicating the policy-violating design directive indirectly in a manner intentionally designed to obscure the truth about DOT fund allocation and avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy violation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 05-5; BER Case 86-6
At the time of design development review communication with Engineer Intern D
Professional Competence Invoked By Engineer Intern D Initial Policy Compliant Design
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design layout
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — producing a policy-compliant design that separated the new closed drainage system from the old water main — demonstrates professional competence in applying DOT policy requirements to design decisions, and establishes the baseline from which Engineer W's improper directive departs
Professional competence in the public agency engineering context requires not only technical design skill but also knowledge of and compliance with applicable mandatory agency policies; Engineer Intern D's initial policy-compliant design reflects this competence
Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern
Professional competence supports Engineer Intern D's resistance to Engineer W's directive, because a competent engineer understands that the policy-compliant design is the correct professional product
Creating conditions where Engineer Intern D's professional development could be compromised by subsequent unethical direction
Placing a formative pre-licensure engineer in a position susceptible to supervisory pressure
Nominal supervisory oversight by retaining sign-off authority
Routine administrative delegation of project work within organizational hierarchy
NSPE Code Canon 2: Engineers shall perform services only in areas of competence, applicable to ensuring delegated work is appropriately supervised
Protection of pre-licensure engineers from undue institutional pressure
Supervisory responsibility for subordinate professional development
Advance the highway reconstruction project through a qualified subordinate while retaining supervisory oversight and sign-off authority
Canon 4 duty of faithful agency to DOT, delegation used as a mechanism to distance Engineer W from direct ethical accountability
Duty to protect formative engineers from ethically compromising situations (mentorship obligation)
Obligation not to exploit supervisory authority over pre-licensure engineers
Ethical foresight regarding downstream risks of delegation decisions
Supervisory judgment regarding appropriate assignment of work to pre-licensure engineers
Project initiation phase, prior to design development
Engineer W assigned the highway reconstruction project to Engineer Intern D, who was preparing to sit for the PE exam. This placed a pre-licensure engineer in a position that would later expose them to ethical compromise.
Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1) + Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3) → Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
Engineer W assigned the project to Engineer Intern D and subsequently indirectly communicated redirection during design review; as a direct outcome of Engineer W's redirection and sign-off offer, Engineer Intern D was placed in a position of ethical compromise
Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1) + Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3)
If Engineer W had either (a) not delegated to the intern, (b) accepted the compliant design, or (c) not offered to sign off as a pressure mechanism, the intern would not have been placed in the ethical compromise position
Engineer W's sign-off offer creating false accountability transfer (Action 4)
Engineer W's supervisory redirection contradicting the compliant design (Action 3)
Initial delegation placing intern in design authority role (Action 1)
Intern's production of a compliant design creating the conflict artifact (Action 2 / Event 4)
Water main deficiency as the underlying factual basis for the ethical stakes (Event 1)
The combination of delegation without ethical guidance, followed by supervisory redirection toward a non-compliant design, followed by a responsibility-shifting offer, collectively constituted a sufficient set to expose the intern to ethical compromise
Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1) → Intern Assigned To Project (Event 3)
As a direct result of Engineer W's delegation decision, Engineer Intern D became the responsible designer for the highway reconstruction project
Without Engineer W's delegation decision, Engineer Intern D would not have become the responsible designer; a qualified licensed engineer would likely have been assigned instead
Engineer Intern D's availability and pending departure status
Engineer W's authority to assign project work
Existence of the DOT Highway Project requiring a designer
Engineer W's unilateral delegation decision combined with institutional authority over intern assignments
Professional engineering norms and DOT administrative practice
Public Infrastructure Cost Allocation Standard
the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost
Engineer W and Engineer Intern D in evaluating the ethical permissibility of the proposed design revision
Establishes the professional norm prohibiting engineers from deliberately designing projects to artificially create utility conflicts in order to circumvent cost-allocation policies, grounding the ethical analysis of Engineer W's instruction to revise the design to impact the water main
Professional engineering ethics norms and state regulatory standards
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer W in discharging duties as senior DOT engineer
Governs Engineer W's obligations as a senior DOT engineer to act impartially and in the public interest rather than directing design decisions to benefit a particular municipality at the expense of DOT policy integrity
Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition — Engineer W — Shadyvale DOT Project
Engineer W's directive would result in approximately $700,000 in DOT public funds being covertly diverted to fund Shadyvale's water main upgrade, which DOT policy unambiguously designates as a local betterment to be paid by the municipality.
Engineer W is absolutely prohibited from directing Engineer Intern D to artificially manipulate the highway design geometry to create a fictitious utility conflict with the Shadyvale water main for the purpose of causing DOT funds to be expended on a betterment that DOT policy assigns to the local municipality.
State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5, 6; Public Infrastructure Cost Allocation Standard; BER Case 98-5
Throughout the design development phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost.
Would it be ethical for Engineer Intern D to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?
Does Engineer W's use of indirect, veiled language to convey the design redirection directive — rather than issuing a direct written order — itself constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, and does that indirection impose a heightened ethical burden on Engineer Intern D to recognize and resist the directive?
Given that Engineer W explicitly offers to personally sign off on the revised design, does that promise transfer ethical and professional responsibility from Engineer Intern D to Engineer W, or does Engineer Intern D retain independent ethical culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating?
What affirmative obligation, if any, does Engineer Intern D have to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and does the fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam affect the standard of professional courage expected of him?
Beyond the immediate ethical violations, does Engineer W's conduct in directing Engineer Intern D — a pre-licensure engineer on the verge of taking the PE exam — to execute a policy-circumventing design constitute a distinct ethical failure in professional mentorship and formative modeling, separate from the faithful agent and deception violations?
Would it be unethical for Engineer W to sign off on the design where the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?
Does the Public Welfare Paramount principle — which might be invoked to justify helping Shadyvale obtain an affordable water main upgrade that serves public health — conflict with the Faithful Agent Obligation and Procurement Integrity principles that prohibit Engineer W from diverting DOT funds through design manipulation, and how should that tension be resolved when the public benefit is real but the means are deceptive?
Does the Loyal Principle Tension between Engineer W's sympathy for Shadyvale's financial constraints and his DOT employer obligations conflict with the Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative principle — and if Engineer W had openly advocated to DOT leadership for a policy exception on Shadyvale's behalf, would that have resolved the tension without ethical violation?
Does the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition — which bars Engineer Intern D from executing a policy-violating design revision — conflict with the Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation, which counsels deference to supervisory judgment, and how should an unlicensed intern calibrate between these competing demands when a senior engineer issues an indirect but clearly policy-violating directive?
Does the Responsible Charge Engagement principle — which requires Engineer W to actively review and ensure policy compliance in work he supervises — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle when Engineer W's offer to sign off on the revised design functions simultaneously as an abdication of genuine responsible charge review and as a mechanism to obscure the policy violation from DOT institutional oversight?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer Intern D's duty to act as a faithful agent of the DOT hold unconditionally, even when compliance with that duty produces a worse outcome for Shadyvale's public welfare — and does the categorical nature of that duty mean that benevolent motive cannot serve as a moral justification for revising the design to artificially impact the old water main?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate benefit to Shadyvale residents of a $700,000 cost reduction in water main replacement — representing genuine public welfare improvement — outweigh the harms of covert DOT fund diversion, policy circumvention, and the corrupting precedent set for Engineer Intern D's professional formation, such that the revised design could be justified on net-outcome grounds?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer W's indirect communication of a policy-circumventing directive — rather than transparent advocacy through proper institutional channels — reveal a deficiency in the virtues of honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom that a senior public engineer ought to embody, and does this deficiency compound the ethical violation beyond mere rule-breaking?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer Intern D bear independent ethical responsibility for refusing the policy-violating directive regardless of Engineer W's sign-off promise — and does the Kantian universalizability test reveal that a maxim permitting interns to comply with supervisor directives that covertly divert public funds, whenever a supervisor accepts personal responsibility, would be self-defeating as a universal professional norm?
If Engineer W had instead pursued transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning the DOT or state legislature to amend the betterment policy or create a hardship exception for municipalities like Shadyvale — would the ethical violations identified by the Board have been avoided entirely, and would this pathway have been both practically available and professionally obligatory?
If Engineer Intern D had immediately escalated Engineer W's indirect directive to a higher DOT authority rather than either complying or simply refusing in silence, would this escalation have satisfied all of Engineer Intern D's ethical obligations — and would it have created institutional accountability that Engineer W's indirect communication was specifically designed to avoid?
If the water main had been genuinely unavoidable — that is, if the highway alignment truly could not have been designed to avoid impacting it — would the same design outcome have been ethically permissible under DOT policy, and does this counterfactual illuminate precisely why the artificial manufacture of a utility conflict is the core ethical violation rather than the cost outcome itself?
If Engineer W had explicitly and directly ordered Engineer Intern D to revise the design — rather than conveying the directive indirectly — would the ethical analysis for Engineer Intern D change, and does the indirectness of the communication itself impose a heightened obligation on Engineer Intern D to name the policy conflict explicitly rather than treating the ambiguity as cover for compliance?
Creation of a coercive dynamic where refusal to comply implies distrust of a senior supervisor's judgment and willingness to protect the intern
Deepening of Engineer Intern D's ethical compromise if the intern relies on the sign-off offer as moral cover for compliance
False impression that Engineer Intern D bears no ethical responsibility for complying with the directive
Further corruption of Engineer Intern D's understanding of professional ethics by modeling that seniority can transfer ethical accountability
BER 86-6 analogy: engineers cannot delegate away ethical responsibility through supervisory sign-off arrangements
NSPE Code Canon 3: Engineers shall issue only truthful and objective professional statements
NSPE Code Canon 4: Faithful agency: sign-off authority must be used to certify legitimate work, not to legitimize policy violations
Professional responsibility is personal and non-transferable, a senior engineer's sign-off does not relieve a subordinate of independent ethical obligation
Protection of pre-licensure engineers from coercive supervisory dynamics is an affirmative professional obligation
Reduce Engineer Intern D's reluctance to comply with the unethical design revision by offering to bear formal sign-off responsibility, thereby making compliance feel professionally safe for the intern
Awareness of the coercive potential of supervisory authority over pre-licensure engineers
Senior engineering sign-off authority under DOT project protocols
Understanding of supervisory responsibility and its limits in transferring ethical accountability
During or immediately following the design development review directive, concurrent with the redirection order
Canon 1: Public welfare, facilitating a design that misallocates public funds under the cover of senior authority
Canon 3: Objectivity and truthfulness, the sign-off offer perpetuates the deception that the revised design is professionally legitimate
Canon 4: Faithful agency to DOT employer, using sign-off authority to facilitate policy circumvention rather than enforce compliance
Mentorship obligation to model ethical conduct for pre-licensure engineers rather than model circumvention of ethical obligations through hierarchical authority
Obligation not to create false impressions about the distribution of ethical and professional responsibility
Supervisory ethics obligation: exploiting the power differential with a pre-licensure engineer through a false offer of protection
Engineer W explicitly told Engineer Intern D 'I'll sign off on it,' offering to assume formal responsibility for the revised design that intentionally impacts the water main. This was a deliberate act of pressure and inducement designed to lower Engineer Intern D's resistance to the unethical directive by transferring apparent accountability to the senior engineer.
Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer (Action 4) → Compliance Decision by Intern (Action 5)
Engineer W explicitly told Engineer Intern D 'I'll sign off on it,' offering to assume formal responsibility, directly precipitating the unresolved volitional decision Engineer Intern D faced of whether to comply
Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer (Action 4)
Without the sign-off offer, the ethical dilemma would still exist from the redirection alone, but the offer added a false legitimizing mechanism that intensified the intern's decision burden by appearing to resolve the accountability question while actually compounding it
Compliance Decision by Intern (Action 5)
Absence of a clear institutional mechanism for the intern to safely refuse
Engineer Intern D's subordinate position creating real or perceived coercive pressure
Engineer W's explicit verbal offer to assume formal sign-off responsibility
The pre-existing ethical compromise situation created by the redirection order
The sign-off offer combined with supervisory authority and the intern's vulnerable transitional status created sufficient pressure to force a compliance decision point
Shadyvale Municipality Water Utility Stakeholder
{'financial_constraint': 'Cannot afford $750,000 full replacement', 'affordable_cost': '$50,000 betterment contribution', 'infrastructure_need': 'Water main replacement and upsizing'}
Local municipality whose aging and undersized water main is the subject of the cost-allocation dispute. Shadyvale cannot afford the full $750,000 replacement cost but could afford the $50,000 betterment cost if the DOT project is manipulated to create an artificial utility conflict, making it the indirect financial beneficiary of the proposed improper design revision.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'State DOT Highway Reconstruction Project'}
{'type': 'indirect_beneficiary_of', 'target': 'Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer'}
The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000
Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford
the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size
State DOT Policy on Utility Conflicts and Betterments in Highway Projects
State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
Engineer W and Engineer Intern D in determining design obligations and cost allocation
Establishes the unambiguous rule that only unavoidable utility conflicts are DOT-funded and that betterments must be paid by the local municipality; defines the policy that Engineer W's instruction would circumvent and that Engineer Intern D must navigate
{'policy': 'Only unavoidable utility conflicts paid for as part of highway projects; other utility work is betterment paid by local municipality', 'role_type': 'Public agency employer and project owner'}
The state Department of Transportation as the public agency client and employer for the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project, whose explicit cost-allocation policy prohibits payment for utility betterments and whose public resources would be improperly expended if Engineer W's proposed design manipulation proceeds.
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern'}
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer'}
{'type': 'policy_authority_over', 'target': 'Shadyvale Highway Reconstruction Project'}
State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects
other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
Transparent Alternative Pathway Obligation — Engineer W — Shadyvale Public Benefit
Multiple transparent authorized pathways existed for Engineer W to advocate for Shadyvale's water main upgrade — including formal DOT policy exception requests and intergovernmental funding channels — making the covert design manipulation approach ethically unjustifiable.
Engineer W is constrained to pursue only transparent, authorized pathways to achieve the public benefit of Shadyvale's water main upgrade — such as formal DOT policy exception requests or intergovernmental funding advocacy — and is prohibited from treating the unavailability of an easy authorized pathway as justification for covert design manipulation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 4, 5; State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; BER Case 98-5
Prior to and during the design development phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
Design compliance would leave Shadyvale's $750,000 water main replacement cost unaddressed
The compliant design would later be challenged by Engineer W's redirection
Canon 1: Protection of public safety and welfare through compliant infrastructure design
Canon 3: Objectivity and honesty in design, reflecting actual project requirements rather than financially motivated manipulation
Canon 4: Faithful agency to DOT employer by adhering to DOT utility conflict policy
Professional obligation to comply with applicable regulations and policies governing engineering practice
DOT policy compliance as a baseline professional obligation
NSPE Code Canon 4: Engineers shall act as faithful agents of their employer
Objectivity in design decisions uncorrupted by external financial pressures
Produce a DOT-compliant highway design that avoids non-unavoidable utility conflicts, fulfilling both technical and policy requirements
Engineering judgment regarding design scope and constraints
Highway design and utility conflict analysis
Interpretation and application of DOT utility conflict policy
Initial design phase, prior to design development review
Engineer Intern D independently chose to design the highway reconstruction project to avoid conflicts with existing utilities, including the aging water main, in full compliance with DOT policy on unavoidable conflicts. This was a volitional professional judgment to follow established policy.
Utility-Avoidance Compliant Design (Action 2) → Compliant Design Produced (Event 4)
Engineer Intern D independently chose to design the highway reconstruction project to avoid conflicts, resulting in Engineer Intern D completing an initial highway reconstruction design that successfully avoided conflicts
Utility-Avoidance Compliant Design (Action 2)
Had Engineer Intern D chosen to incorporate the utility conflict at this stage, or had Engineer W intervened earlier with redirection, the compliant design would not have been produced
Absence of supervisory interference at the design production stage
Engineer Intern D's independent ethical judgment to prioritize compliance
Intern's awareness of the water main deficiency and utility conflict risk
Intern's technical competence sufficient to produce an avoidance-based design
Intern's volitional ethical choice combined with technical capability and unsupervised design authority
Infrastructure deficiency enters public record; cost burden formally quantified at $750,000; Shadyvale placed in position of seeking alternative funding mechanisms
Prior to DOT project initiation; background/precondition phase
A professional consultant formally assessed Shadyvale's existing water main as aging and undersized, producing a documented finding that full replacement would cost $750,000, an amount deemed unaffordable for the municipality. This assessment established the factual predicate for all subsequent engineering and financial maneuvering.
consultant assessment of water main before DOT highway reconstruction project planning
A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old... The State DOT is planning a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale.
DOT highway reconstruction project planning
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
The honesty obligation is not overridden by the engineer's interest in moving negotiations forward; the Board finds Engineer Adam's conduct merits rebuke regardless of his commercial motivation
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.72
The Board does not find a direct public safety conflict in the present case but identifies truthfulness and objectivity as the core ethical values at risk, situating the case within the broader public welfare framework while emphasizing the specific value implicated
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The Board rejected the 'trade-off' rationalization, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make plain that compromising code enforcement was not an acceptable concession regardless of the benefit offered in return
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The faithful agent obligation to DOT as institution requires compliance with DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy, which overrides the general deference obligation to Engineer W as immediate supervisor when Engineer W's directive conflicts with that policy
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
The intern's independent ethical obligation to refuse policy-violating directives overrides the general deference obligation to supervisory authority when the supervisor is directing the intern toward clearly policy-violating conduct
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The subordinate complicity prohibition overrides any deference obligation the intern might otherwise owe to the supervisor's direction, because the direction itself violates applicable professional standards and employer policy
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
Engineer W's explicit offer to 'sign off on it' does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical culpability for knowingly implementing the policy-violating design revision; Engineer Intern D remains obligated to refuse and escalate regardless of the sign-off offer.
Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
Engineer W's loyalty to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship overrides any sympathy-based inclination to benefit Shadyvale through policy circumvention
The faithful agent obligation to the DOT employer is not overridden by altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale; the Board finds Engineer W violated this obligation by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's policy
The formative mentorship obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the subordinate complicity prohibition — both principles converge on the conclusion that Engineer W's direction to the intern is ethically impermissible and that the intern should not cooperate
Honesty requires Engineer W to either explicitly acknowledge the policy conflict and seek proper authorization for an exception, or to withdraw the directive; indirect communication that obscures the policy-violating nature of the directive is not ethically permissible
The Board offers support — not censure — for transparent advocacy approaches, indicating that the ethical violation lies not in the goal of helping Shadyvale but in the covert means chosen when transparent alternatives were available
The mandatory nature of DOT cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds override the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; Engineer W must not direct design manipulation to circumvent the policy
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 full water main replacement cost constitutes a resource constraint that limits the municipality's options for addressing the aging and undersized water main, but does not authorize circumvention of DOT utility betterment policy to shift costs to the DOT.
Procurement integrity and faithful agent obligations both require compliance with DOT policy; neither is overridden by Engineer W's altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale
The mandatory nature of DOT cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds override any sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship; Engineer W must not direct design manipulation to circumvent the policy
Engineer W is constrained by conflict of interest avoidance provisions from directing design decisions that benefit Shadyvale at the DOT's financial expense while serving as the senior DOT engineer responsible for the project, as this dual obligation creates an unmitigated conflict between Engineer W's role as DOT faithful agent and the directive to benefit Shadyvale.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
Engineer W is constrained by the State DOT's unambiguous utility betterment policy from directing any design revision that would cause DOT funds to be expended on water main work that policy designates as a Shadyvale betterment, regardless of Shadyvale's financial hardship or Engineer W's altruistic intent.
Engineer W must refuse to sign off on a design revision that violates applicable mandatory DOT policy, regardless of the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; the responsible charge obligation requires substantive rather than nominal oversight
design development review before Engineer W direction to revise design
During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
Engineer Adam's statement to Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' — when Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest — constituted an artfully misleading representation designed to ob
Engineer Charlie's agreement to allow specified buildings under construction to be grandfathered under older, less rigorous code enforcement requirements in exchange for the city council chairman's order permitting additional code official
Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in designing the project to avoid the old water main reflects the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, producing a policy-compliant design rather than one shaped by political or s
Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — including separation of the new closed drainage system from the old water main — reflects the paramount obligation to protect public resources and ensu
Engineer Intern D's obligation to serve the State DOT faithfully is bounded by the ethical and policy limits imposed by mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; faithful agency to DOT requires maintaining the policy-compliant design and escala
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy, the intern becomes complicit in the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds, treating Engineer W's supervisory autho
Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision; the intern cannot treat the supervisor's sign-off promi
Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above E
Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D — designed to achieve a policy-circumventing outcome while maintaining plausible deniability — constitutes deceptive conduct inconsistent with Canon 5's requirement to avoid deception, an
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy is particularly ethically harmful because it teaches the intern — at a formative stage of professional development — that secretly diverting publ
Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main — motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — constitutes a violation of the principle prohibiting engineers from
Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — thereby triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation exception contrary to the actual design situation — constitutes a manipulati
Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project to incorporate the old water main constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent DOT cost-allocation policy, effectively diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds
The Board distinguishes the present case from BER Case 98-5 by noting that in the Shadyvale situation, the ethical value directly at risk is not public safety, health and welfare, but rather the truth — indicating that while public welfare
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy and direct Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to incorporate the old water main violated his Canon 4 obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of his employer, the State DOT, by pl
Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict and the intent to circumvent it — constitutes a form of professional dishonesty t
Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — constitutes a nominal rather than substantive ex
The Board identifies multiple transparent, institutionally sanctioned alternatives available to Engineer W — requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency benefits for Shadyvale,
Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main does not render ethically permissible his covert direction to divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of DOT policy; the Board eva
Engineer W's apparent sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship creates a loyalty tension between serving Shadyvale's interests (as a project stakeholder) and maintaining loyalty to DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy and the public in
Engineer Adam was obligated to disclose to Engineer Baker the full and accurate circumstances of Engineer Mary's interest in the subsidiary — specifically that Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — rather than referenci
Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, wh
Engineer Intern D was obligated to recognize that Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical responsibility to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision —
Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to implement Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the
Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory or
Engineer W was obligated, as a senior DOT engineer supervising Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career, to model ethical compliance with DOT policy and to refrain from directing the intern to participate in a cov
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the design revision directive indirectly — in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict — and instead to communicate any directive cl
Engineer W was obligated to preserve the integrity of the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy — requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects — by refraining from directing Engineer Intern D to re
Engineer W was obligated, as the licensed senior engineer in responsible charge of the Shadyvale DOT project, to conduct an active, substantive review of the design's compliance with DOT cost-allocation policy before directing any revision
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the policy-violating design revision directive to Engineer Intern D indirectly or ambiguously as a means of avoiding explicit acknowledgment of the DOT policy conflict, recognizing that
Engineer W was obligated to ensure that the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design complied with the DOT's cost-allocation policy — which unambiguously requires that only genuinely unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as par
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' on the revised design as a substitute for his own independent determination that the revision complied with DOT cost-allocation policy — recognizing that responsible cha
Engineer Charlie was obligated to refuse the city council chairman's bargain — concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance permitting specified buildings to be inspected under less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to h
Engineer W was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT — his employer — by adhering to the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projec
Engineer W was obligated, as a licensed senior DOT engineer, to preserve the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy by refraining from directing a design revision whose primary purpose was to artificially create an 'unavoidable' util
Engineer W was obligated to pursue the beneficial outcome of upgrading Shadyvale's water main exclusively through transparent, institutionally sanctioned channels — including requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of c
Engineer W was obligated to recognize that his altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale did not render ethically permissible his direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT cost-al
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious 'unavoidable' utility conflict — recognizing that such manipulation constitutes an improper u
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from subordinating the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy to sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — recognizing that the policy exists to protect the integrity of public procurement and the e
Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriat
Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to revise the policy-compliant design — which avoided conflicts with the existing water main — in response to Engineer W's indirect directive, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on t
Engineer Intern D was obligated to serve the State DOT faithfully as the client and employer — including by preserving the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy — and to recognize that faithful service to the DOT required adherence
Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict created by Engineer W's directive, to communicate all material facts to the appropriate authority — including the indirectness of Engineer W's communication, the specific
Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, to refrain from independently filtering or withholding any facts about Engineer W's directive — including the indirectness of the communic
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 05-5 (Engineer Adam and Artfully Misleading Negotiation)
BER Case 05-5 relates how Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker, wanted to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer W's deceptive conduct
Cited as precedent establishing that artfully misleading or deceptive statements, even when serving self-interest or strategic goals, violate the engineer's obligation of honesty and truthfulness
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-5 (Engineer Charlie and Building Inspection Trade-offs)
In BER Case 98-5, Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city where, as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, he became concerned that his staff would be unable to perform adequate and timely building inspections.
the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning for the present case
Cited as precedent for the principle that benevolent motives and political trade-offs do not justify compromising ethical obligations, particularly when righting a wrong with another wrong increases public safety risk
Conflict of Interest Avoidance — Engineer W — DOT vs Shadyvale Dual Obligation
Engineer W holds a position of trust as a senior DOT engineer bound by DOT cost-allocation policy while simultaneously directing a design outcome that benefits Shadyvale municipality at the DOT's expense of approximately $700,000.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project.
Throughout Engineer W's tenure as senior DOT engineer responsible for the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project
DOT Utility Betterment Policy Compliance — Engineer W — Shadyvale DOT Project
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise the design to artificially impact the existing water main, which would cause approximately $700,000 in DOT funds to be spent on a Shadyvale water main upgrade that DOT policy designates as a local betterment.
Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 4 (faithful agent); NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 5 (non-deception)
Resource Constraint — Shadyvale Water Main Replacement Cost
The $750,000 replacement cost is described as unaffordable for Shadyvale, creating the financial pressure that motivated Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive; the resource constraint is real but does not justify the ethical violation.
Case facts; DOT Utility Betterment Policy
At the time of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project planning and design
Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation — Engineer Intern D — Shadyvale DOT Project
Engineer W told Engineer Intern D 'I'll sign off on it' as implicit cover for the directive to revise the design to artificially impact the water main in violation of DOT utility betterment policy.
Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint; BER Case 15-2
At the moment Engineer W communicated the sign-off offer and throughout any subsequent design revision process
Conflict of Interest State — Engineer W's Dual Obligation to DOT Policy and Shadyvale Financial Benefit
From Engineer W's indirect directive through resolution of the design decision
Engineer W's position as DOT senior engineer bound by DOT cost-allocation policy while directing a design outcome that benefits Shadyvale at DOT's expense through policy circumvention
Design decision finalized in compliance with or in violation of DOT policy
State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for
Engineer W's decision to indirectly direct a design revision that circumvents DOT policy to benefit Shadyvale
From Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D through any point at which the diversion is disclosed or the design is corrected
it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
Engineer W's direction resulting in covert diversion of approximately $700,000 of DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale's water main upgrade
Not yet terminated — diversion has not been disclosed or corrected
secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village
Engineer W's instruction to design around the old water main, which would cause DOT to fund Shadyvale's water main upgrade without authorization
Engineer Charlie Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'role_title': 'Director of Building Department', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 98-5', 'ethical_finding': 'Impermissible compromise of code enforcement integrity'}
Director of a city building department who, facing budget cutbacks and inability to perform adequate inspections, agreed with a city council chairman to concur on a grandfathering ordinance allowing certain buildings to be inspected under older, less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials, thereby trading one public good against another in a manner the BER found ethically impermissible.
{'type': 'political_negotiation', 'target': 'City Council Chairman'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'General Public'}
Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city
Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety
the chairman sought Engineer Charlie's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
Engineer Intern D Professional Formation
From Engineer W's initial direction through Engineer Intern D's decision to comply or refuse
future clients and public served by Engineer Intern D
Engineer Intern D's early-career professional formation through direct exposure to Engineer W's ethically questionable direction
Engineer Intern D's decision to adhere to DOT policy (as noted in the discussion) or to comply with Engineer W's direction
Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done?
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to revise the design in a policy-violating manner
Engineer Intern D Supervisor Sign-Off Ethical Shield
From Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D through Engineer Intern D's decision
Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield State
Engineer W's implicit offer of supervisory authority and sign-off as a mechanism to pressure Engineer Intern D into compliance with the policy-violating direction
Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy as noted in the discussion
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to revise the design, implying supervisory authority will cover the action
Engineer W Competing Duties — Shadyvale vs DOT
From Engineer W's identification of the Shadyvale water main opportunity through resolution
Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
Engineer W's competing obligations between DOT employer policy and the perceived public benefit of assisting Shadyvale's impoverished community
Discovery that DOT road project creates an opportunity to upgrade Shadyvale's water main at DOT expense, in tension with DOT policy prohibiting such use of funds
Engineer W Faithful Agent Boundary Violation
From Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D through any point at which Engineer W returns to acting within DOT policy
Engineer W's departure from the faithful agent role by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests and policy
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to design in a manner that violates DOT policy and diverts DOT funds to Shadyvale
Engineer W Transparent Alternatives Available
From the point at which Engineer W identified the opportunity to benefit Shadyvale through the present unresolved state
Transparent Alternative Pathway Available State
Engineer W's situation in which multiple transparent, authorized pathways exist to achieve the same public benefit for Shadyvale without policy violation
Not yet terminated — Engineer W has not pursued transparent alternatives
Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation.
Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications
Engineer W's identification of the opportunity to benefit Shadyvale residents, combined with the existence of authorized alternative pathways not yet pursued
Public Safety at Risk — Undersized Aging Water Main
From consultant determination of water main condition through replacement or upgrade
A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old
The existing Shadyvale water main, which is extremely old and no longer large enough for all properties served
Water main replaced or upgraded to adequate capacity
The water main is no longer large enough for all the properties served
Consultant determination that the water main is extremely old and undersized for current demand
Regulatory Compliance State — DOT Cost-Allocation Policy
Throughout the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design and execution
State DOT policy governing payment for utility conflicts in highway projects
Initiation of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project under existing DOT policy
Resource Constrained State — Shadyvale Water Main Replacement Cost
Throughout the project planning and design period
Shadyvale municipality's inability to afford the full $750,000 water main replacement cost
Shadyvale secures funding, or a cost-sharing mechanism is formally established
Consultant determination that water main replacement would cost $750,000, which Shadyvale cannot afford
Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-5', 'ethical_finding': 'Artfully misleading statement; intentionally designed to mislead by obscuring the truth'}
Chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary who, in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, made an artfully misleading statement implying another company had expressed current interest in purchasing the subsidiary when in fact Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest, thereby obscuring the truth in violation of professional ethics obligations.
{'type': 'misrepresented_interest', 'target': 'Engineer Mary'}
{'type': 'negotiation_counterpart', 'target': 'Engineer Baker'}
Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
The Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
Public Welfare Paramount Distinguished from Truthfulness in Present Case
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project ethical analysis
The Board distinguishes the present case from BER Case 98-5 by noting that in the Shadyvale situation, the ethical value directly at risk is not public safety, health and welfare, but rather the truth — indicating that while public welfare is the paramount principle in cases like Engineer Charlie's, the present case primarily implicates objectivity and truthfulness as the core ethical values at stake
In this context, the Board applies public welfare analysis to distinguish between cases where the primary ethical risk is public safety (BER Case 98-5) and cases where the primary ethical risk is institutional truthfulness and policy integrity (present case), demonstrating that the public welfare principle requires contextual calibration to identify which specific value is most directly threatened
Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth. The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession.
The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession.
Engineer Intern D received an indirectly communicated directive from Engineer W to revise a DOT policy-compliant design to incorporate the old Shadyvale water main — a revision that would divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of explicit agency policy.
Indirect Policy-Violating Directive Escalation Obligation
Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory, legal, or administrative authorities within the DOT before taking any action on the directive, so that the policy violation could be surfaced through proper institutional channels.
Upon receiving and recognizing the policy-violating nature of Engineer W's indirect directive
From Engineer W's initial direction to Engineer Intern D through the present unresolved state of the case
Altruistic Motive Policy Violation State
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to design around the old water main in a manner that violates DOT policy
Not yet terminated — Engineer W has not pursued transparent alternatives or disclosed the situation
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to revise the design to avoid the old water main, motivated by desire to benefit Shadyvale residents
Engineer W Formative Mentorship Ethical Integrity Shadyvale Intern D
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D — a young engineer at the beginning of a professional career — to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner that would covertly divert $700,000 of DOT funds, thereby imparting a formatively harmful lesson about professional ethics.
Formative Mentorship Ethical Integrity Obligation
Engineer W was obligated, as a senior DOT engineer supervising Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career, to model ethical compliance with DOT policy and to refrain from directing the intern to participate in a covert policy-violating design revision — recognizing that such direction would teach the intern that secretly diverting public funds is an acceptable professional practice.
Throughout the supervisory relationship and specifically at the time of the policy-violating directive
Engineer W Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
Engineer W chose to convey the policy-violating design revision directive 'in an indirect way,' which appears designed to avoid creating a documented record of explicit policy violation and to place the implementation burden on Engineer Intern D while maintaining plausible deniability. This indirect communication style is itself a violation of the honesty obligation.
Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the design revision directive indirectly — in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict — and instead to communicate any directive clearly and explicitly, including acknowledging the policy conflict and the agency's authority to resolve it, rather than placing Engineer Intern D in the position of implementing a policy-violating revision without explicit supervisory acknowledgment of the violation.
At the time of communicating the design revision directive during design development review
Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Shadyvale
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, which would have the effect of artificially triggering the DOT's unavoidable utility conflict policy and diverting $700,000 of public DOT funds to benefit the municipality.
Engineer W was obligated to preserve the integrity of the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy — requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects — by refraining from directing Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to artificially create an 'unavoidable' conflict with the old Shadyvale water main in order to shift approximately $700,000 of costs from Shadyvale to the DOT.
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
Throughout the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project design phase
secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution.
Engineer W Responsible Charge Active Policy Compliance Review Obligation
Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design and promised to 'sign off' on the revised version, without independently verifying that the revision would comply with the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy. The 'sign off' promise was used as a mechanism to authorize a pre-determined policy-violating outcome rather than as the product of responsible charge review.
Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
Engineer W was obligated, as the licensed senior engineer in responsible charge of the Shadyvale DOT project, to conduct an active, substantive review of the design's compliance with DOT cost-allocation policy before directing any revision — and to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' as a substitute for independent determination that the revised design would comply with applicable agency policy.
Before directing the design revision and before any promise to seal the revised design
Engineer W communicated the directive to revise the design to incorporate the old water main indirectly, in a manner that appeared designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment that the revision would violate DOT cost-allocation policy.
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the policy-violating design revision directive to Engineer Intern D indirectly or ambiguously as a means of avoiding explicit acknowledgment of the DOT policy conflict, recognizing that indirect communication designed to obscure a policy violation is itself a form of dishonesty that compounds the underlying ethical violation and places the intern in an untenable professional position.
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception.
At the time Engineer W communicated the design revision directive to Engineer Intern D
Honesty in Professional Representations -- Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict...
Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer W Deceptive Direction
Direction to Engineer Intern D regarding Shadyvale project redesign
Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D — designed to achieve a policy-circumventing outcome while maintaining plausible deniability — constitutes deceptive conduct inconsistent with Canon 5's requirement to avoid deception, analogous to the 'artfully misleading' conduct condemned in BER Case 05-5
In this context, the honesty principle requires that Engineer W's direction to the intern be transparent about its policy implications rather than structured to obscure the diversion of DOT funds; covert redirection of public resources through indirect supervisory direction constitutes a form of deception toward the employer
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Honesty and the prohibition on deception are not overridden by altruistic motivation; the Board analogizes Engineer W's conduct to Engineer Adam's 'artfully misleading' negotiation tactic in BER Case 05-5
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception
In an effort to move the negotiations off 'dead center,' and referring to Engineer Mary's earlier interest, Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Objectivity and Truthfulness Invoked by Engineer Intern D
Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in designing the project to avoid the old water main reflects the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, producing a policy-compliant design rather than one shaped by political or stakeholder pressure
In this context, objectivity and truthfulness require the intern to produce a design that accurately reflects applicable DOT policy constraints rather than one manipulated to achieve a politically convenient outcome for a favored stakeholder
Objectivity and truthfulness align with the intern's faithful agent obligation to the DOT employer, and both support compliance with DOT policy over accommodation of Shadyvale's interests
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design
Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — including separation of the new closed drainage system from the old water main — reflects the paramount obligation to protect public resources and ensure that DOT highway project funds are used in accordance with mandatory policy, thereby protecting the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds
In this context, public welfare encompasses not only physical safety but also the integrity of public resource allocation; a design that artificially creates a utility conflict to shift costs contrary to mandatory DOT policy harms the public interest even if no physical safety risk is immediately apparent
Public welfare obligation requires Engineer Intern D to maintain the policy-compliant design and escalate Engineer W's improper directive rather than complying with it
Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
From Engineer W's statement 'I'll sign off on it' through resolution of Engineer Intern D's compliance decision
Engineer W's explicit offer to personally sign off on the revised design as cover for the policy-circumventing directive
Not yet terminated — active pending Engineer Intern D's response
Engineer W's explicit statement offering personal sign-off to Engineer Intern D following the indirect directive to revise the design
Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
From Engineer W's delegation of the project through project completion or Engineer W's reassumption of direct control
Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation State
Engineer W's delegation of the Shadyvale DOT project to Engineer Intern D, who is not yet licensed
Engineer Intern D passes PE exam and obtains licensure, or Engineer W reassumes direct project control
Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam but is not yet licensed
Engineer W Procurement Integrity Violation DOT Cost Allocation Policy
The DOT's cost-allocation policy functions as a procurement law constraint governing the allocation of public funds between the DOT and local municipalities. Engineer W's directive to artificially create a utility conflict to circumvent this policy constitutes a violation of the procurement integrity obligation analogous to circumventing QBS requirements.
Engineer W was obligated to ensure that the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design complied with the DOT's cost-allocation policy — which unambiguously requires that only genuinely unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects — and to refrain from directing design modifications whose purpose was to artificially trigger the 'unavoidable conflict' provision to shift costs from Shadyvale to the DOT.
Throughout the design development and review process
Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer W and Intern D
Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy is particularly ethically harmful because it teaches the intern — at a formative stage of professional development — that secretly diverting public funds is an acceptable professional practice, compounding the immediate ethical violation with long-term harm to the intern's professional character formation
In this context, the principle heightens the ethical gravity of Engineer W's conduct by recognizing that the intern's early-career professional formation is at stake; the Board treats the formative impact on the intern as a reason for heightened concern beyond the immediate policy violation
Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation
Loyalty Principle Tension Engineer W Shadyvale Sympathy vs DOT Policy
Engineer W's relationship with Shadyvale as project stakeholder
Engineer W's relationship with State DOT as employer
Engineer W's apparent sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship creates a loyalty tension between serving Shadyvale's interests (as a project stakeholder) and maintaining loyalty to DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds; this tension does not justify policy circumvention
Engineer W's loyalty obligation runs primarily to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship; sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship does not create a loyalty obligation that overrides mandatory DOT policy
Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Applied to DOT Fund Diversion
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design and cost allocation
Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project to incorporate the old water main constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent DOT cost-allocation policy, effectively diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale in violation of the DOT's clear policy and the lawful allocation of public infrastructure costs
In this context, procurement integrity requires that DOT infrastructure decisions be made in accordance with DOT policy governing cost allocation between state and municipal infrastructure, prohibiting manipulation of technical design choices to achieve financial outcomes that circumvent that policy
Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
Engineer Intern D Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting of Policy Conflict
Engineer Intern D, as an unlicensed subordinate, lacks the authority to independently determine which facts about Engineer W's directive are material to the agency's response. All facts — including the indirect communication style, the policy violation, and the sign-off promise — must be reported completely.
Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting Obligation
Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict created by Engineer W's directive, to communicate all material facts to the appropriate authority — including the indirectness of Engineer W's communication, the specific policy provision violated, the financial magnitude of the cost shift ($700,000 vs. $50,000), and the fact that Engineer W promised to 'sign off' on the revised design — without filtering or minimizing any fact that would bear on the authority's understanding of the situation.
At the time of escalation to appropriate agency authority
{'license': 'Engineer Intern (unlicensed)', 'employer': 'State Department of Transportation', 'ethical_compliance': 'Canon 3 - objectivity and truthfulness'}
Engineer intern who independently produced a DOT policy-compliant design avoiding the old water main and was subsequently subjected to supervisory pressure from Engineer W to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, bearing obligations to resist improper direction and uphold objectivity and truthfulness consistent with Canon 3.
{'type': 'employer_agent', 'target': 'State DOT'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer W'}
DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted
Engineer Intern D Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Full Reporting Obligation
Engineer Intern D, as an engineer intern about to sit for the PE exam, may be tempted to minimize or filter certain facts about Engineer W's directive when escalating — for example, to protect Engineer W or to avoid appearing to accuse a supervisor. The intern materiality judgment restraint obligation requires full, unfiltered reporting of all relevant facts.
Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Obligation
Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, to refrain from independently filtering or withholding any facts about Engineer W's directive — including the indirectness of the communication, the financial magnitude of the cost shift, and the sign-off promise — based on Engineer Intern D's own assessment of their materiality, recognizing that as an unlicensed intern, Engineer Intern D is not yet qualified to make independent determinations about what information is material to the agency's response.
Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design Preservation Obligation
Engineer Intern D independently produced a DOT policy-compliant design separating the new closed drainage system from the old water main. Engineer W then indirectly directed revision of the design to impact the water main, promising to sign off on it, which would have shifted $700,000 in water main replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT in violation of explicit agency policy.
Policy-Violating Design Revision Refusal Obligation
Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to revise the policy-compliant design — which avoided conflicts with the existing water main — in response to Engineer W's indirect directive, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design, because the revision would have artificially created a utility conflict to circumvent the DOT's cost-allocation policy.
Upon receipt of Engineer W's indirect directive during design development review
Engineer W Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Policy Compliance Sign Off Promise
Engineer W promised to 'sign off' on the revised design after directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating revision, apparently treating the promise of his seal as a mechanism to relieve the intern of ethical concern while avoiding his own independent policy compliance determination.
Responsible Charge Non-Delegation of Policy Compliance Obligation
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' on the revised design as a substitute for his own independent determination that the revision complied with DOT cost-allocation policy — recognizing that responsible charge required active, substantive engagement with the policy compliance of the design decision, and that a promise to seal a policy-violating design compounded rather than discharged the responsible charge obligation.
At the time Engineer W promised to sign off on the revised design
Responsible Charge Engagement -- Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict...
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D DOT Service
Engineer Intern D's service relationship with State DOT as employer
Engineer Intern D's obligation to serve the State DOT faithfully is bounded by the ethical and policy limits imposed by mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; faithful agency to DOT requires maintaining the policy-compliant design and escalating Engineer W's improper directive, not complying with a directive that would misappropriate DOT funds contrary to mandatory policy
Faithful agency to DOT paradoxically requires Engineer Intern D to resist Engineer W's directive, because complying with the directive would harm DOT's institutional interest in policy compliance and proper resource stewardship; the faithful agent obligation runs to the institution and its lawful policies, not merely to the immediate supervisor
Faithful Agent Obligation Violated by Engineer W
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design direction
Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy and direct Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to incorporate the old water main violated his Canon 4 obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of his employer, the State DOT, by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's clear policy
In this context, the faithful agent obligation requires Engineer W to execute the DOT's project in accordance with DOT policy, not to redirect DOT resources to benefit a third-party municipality in violation of that policy, regardless of the efficiency or altruistic appeal of doing so
Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer W Indirect Communication
Communication of design revision directive to Engineer Intern D
Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict and the intent to circumvent it — constitutes a form of professional dishonesty that obscures the improper nature of the directive and places the ethical burden on Engineer Intern D without transparent acknowledgment of what is being asked
Professional honesty requires that engineers communicate directly and transparently about the basis for their professional directives; Engineer W's use of indirect communication to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict is a form of professional dishonesty that undermines the integrity of the supervisory relationship
Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Applied to Engineer Intern D Cooperation Decision
Decision whether to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy, the intern becomes complicit in the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds, treating Engineer W's supervisory authority as an ethical shield that absolves the intern of responsibility for participating in the improper arrangement
In this context, the principle requires Engineer Intern D to refuse cooperation with Engineer W's direction to violate DOT policy, recognizing that supervisory direction to engage in unethical conduct does not create an ethical obligation to comply and that the intern bears independent ethical responsibility for the arrangement
Engineer Adam Full Circumstance Disclosure Firm Sale Negotiation Engineer Mary Status
Engineer Adam referenced Engineer Mary's earlier interest in purchasing the subsidiary without disclosing that Engineer Mary had subsequently and definitively declined, thereby creating a misleading impression of current competitive interest to pressure Engineer Baker in negotiations.
Full Circumstance Disclosure in Professional Negotiations Obligation
Engineer Adam was obligated to disclose to Engineer Baker the full and accurate circumstances of Engineer Mary's interest in the subsidiary — specifically that Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — rather than referencing her earlier expression of interest in a manner that created a false impression of current competitive bidding pressure.
Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
At the time of making the statement to Engineer Baker about 'another company's' interest
Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Building Inspection
Engineer Charlie, as director of a city building department facing budget cutbacks, agreed with the city council chairman to concur on a grandfathering ordinance for buildings under construction in exchange for authorization to hire additional inspection staff — a political trade-off the Board found ethically impermissible.
Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Obligation
Engineer Charlie was obligated to refuse the city council chairman's bargain — concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance permitting specified buildings to be inspected under less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials — and to make plain to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety.
At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and before agreeing to the grandfathering ordinance
However, the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
Engineer Intern D Faithful Agent DOT Policy Compliance Obligation
Engineer Intern D's faithful agent obligation runs to the State DOT as employer and client. The DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy is a binding institutional constraint that defines the scope of faithful service. Implementing a design revision that circumvents that policy would constitute a breach of the faithful agent duty to the DOT, notwithstanding the supervisor's directive.
Engineer Intern D was obligated to serve the State DOT faithfully as the client and employer — including by preserving the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy — and to recognize that faithful service to the DOT required adherence to the agency's explicit policy rather than compliance with a supervisor's directive that would circumvent that policy.
Throughout the design development process
Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation Violated By Engineer W Indirect Directive
Shadyvale water main replacement cost allocation decision
Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main — motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — constitutes a violation of the principle prohibiting engineers from compromising mandatory policy standards as consideration for budgetary or stakeholder concessions
Shadyvale's genuine financial hardship ($750,000 replacement cost vs. $50,000 betterment cost) does not authorize Engineer W to direct design manipulation that circumvents mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; sympathy for a stakeholder's financial situation cannot override the engineer's obligation to comply with applicable mandatory standards
Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Applied to Engineer Charlie
Building code enforcement grandfathering agreement with city council chairman
Engineer Charlie's agreement to allow specified buildings under construction to be grandfathered under older, less rigorous code enforcement requirements in exchange for the city council chairman's order permitting additional code official hiring constituted an impermissible political trade-off that compromised public safety standards
In this context, the principle prohibits Engineer Charlie from treating public safety code enforcement as a bargaining chip in a political negotiation, even when the concession sought (additional inspection staff) would itself benefit public safety — righting a wrong with another wrong increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety
Procurement Integrity Violated By Engineer W Design Manipulation
DOT highway reconstruction project cost-allocation decision
Shadyvale water main replacement cost allocation
Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — thereby triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation exception contrary to the actual design situation — constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent mandatory cost-allocation policy, misappropriating public DOT infrastructure funds for costs that properly belong to Shadyvale under applicable policy
The mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy exists to protect public resources and ensure that betterment costs are borne by the benefiting municipality; Engineer W's directive to manipulate the design to circumvent this policy misappropriates public funds and undermines the integrity of the public infrastructure program
Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Invoked By Engineer Intern D Sign Off Promise
Engineer W's indirect directive to revise policy-compliant design
Engineer W's promise to sign off on revised design
Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision; the intern cannot treat the supervisor's sign-off promise as an ethical shield that absolves the intern of responsibility for participating in the policy circumvention
Engineer Intern D bears an independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement the policy-violating design revision, regardless of Engineer W's promise to assume formal responsibility by signing off; the sign-off promise does not transfer or extinguish the intern's ethical obligation
DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
From Engineer W's indirect communication during design development review through resolution of whether Engineer Intern D complies or refuses
Policy-Circumvention Design Manipulation State
Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D to revise the highway design to artificially impact the existing water main
Not yet terminated — active pending Engineer Intern D's response and design decision
Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities
Engineer W indirectly conveys to Engineer Intern D that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted, despite DOT policy limiting payment to unavoidable conflicts
Engineer W is a DOT engineer with no contractual relationship with Shadyvale, whose direction to Engineer Intern D placed Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests in violation of the DOT's clear cost-allocation policy.
Engineer W was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT — his employer — by adhering to the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects, and by refraining from directing a design revision whose purpose was to artificially create a policy-qualifying condition to divert DOT funds to Shadyvale.
Throughout the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project
However, Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
In the present case, clearly Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale.
Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
Engineer W, motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship, directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main. This would have caused the DOT to fund the bulk of Shadyvale's water main replacement as an 'unavoidable' conflict, in direct violation of the DOT's unambiguous policy that only genuinely unavoidable utility conflicts are to be funded as part of highway projects.
Engineer W was obligated, as a licensed senior DOT engineer, to preserve the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy by refraining from directing a design revision whose primary purpose was to artificially create an 'unavoidable' utility conflict with the old water main — thereby shifting approximately $700,000 in water main replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT in circumvention of the agency's explicit policy.
Throughout the design development review process
In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost. As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade.
Engineer W Transparent Advocacy Substitution Shadyvale DOT Project
Engineer W, a senior DOT engineer, directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, which would divert approximately $700,000 of DOT funds to benefit the impoverished municipality — a result achievable only through covert policy circumvention rather than authorized channels.
Transparent Advocacy Substitution for Policy Circumvention Obligation
Engineer W was obligated to pursue the beneficial outcome of upgrading Shadyvale's water main exclusively through transparent, institutionally sanctioned channels — including requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency sharing, or assisting Shadyvale with grant applications — rather than covertly directing Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to artificially trigger the DOT's unavoidable utility conflict policy.
Upon identifying the opportunity to benefit Shadyvale and before directing any design revision
However, secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution.
Responsible Charge Engagement Violated By Engineer W Sign Off Promise
Engineer W's supervisory responsibility for the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design
Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — constitutes a nominal rather than substantive exercise of responsible charge, because Engineer W cannot genuinely vouch for the technical adequacy and policy compliance of a design that Engineer W has directed to be made contrary to applicable mandatory policy
Responsible charge requires that the sealing engineer be able to genuinely vouch for both the technical adequacy and the policy compliance of the sealed work; Engineer W's promise to sign off on a policy-violating design revision is a nominal exercise of responsible charge that does not satisfy the substantive engagement requirement
Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative Applied to Engineer W Situation
Shadyvale water main upgrade within DOT highway reconstruction project
The Board identifies multiple transparent, institutionally sanctioned alternatives available to Engineer W — requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency benefits for Shadyvale, or assisting with grant applications — that would have allowed pursuit of the beneficial outcome without covert policy circumvention
In this context, the principle establishes that the existence of available ethical alternatives forecloses the justification for covert policy circumvention; Engineer W's failure to pursue transparent channels before directing the intern to violate DOT policy renders his conduct ethically impermissible
Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative to Policy Circumvention
Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation. Or Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation Applied to Engineer W
Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project fund diversion direction
Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main does not render ethically permissible his covert direction to divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of DOT policy; the Board evaluates the conduct itself against professional standards, not the actor's praiseworthy intentions
In this context, the principle requires the Board to find Engineer W's conduct ethically impermissible despite acknowledging his meritorious and praiseworthy motivation, because the ethical evaluation of professional conduct is determined by the nature of the act and its conformity with professional duties
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main. If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do. However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical.
While Engineer W's direct solution in Shadyvale may well be efficient and optimal, helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth
Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation
Engineer Adam, acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, made an artfully misleading statement to Engineer Baker referencing Engineer Mary's earlier (but definitively withdrawn) interest in purchasing the subsidiary, in order to create urgency and move stalled negotiations forward.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, while technically referencing a prior expression of interest, was artfully misleading in that it created a false impression of current competitive interest designed to pressure Engineer Baker into accelerating the negotiation.
During the negotiation with Engineer Baker, after Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest
Engineer Intern D Escalation of Policy Conflict to Agency Authority Obligation
Engineer Intern D received an indirect directive from senior engineer Engineer W to revise a policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main, which would circumvent the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy. The indirectness of the communication itself signals Engineer W's awareness of the policy conflict and places Engineer Intern D in an ethically untenable position requiring escalation.
Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory or administrative authorities within the DOT — such as Engineer W's supervisor, the agency's legal counsel, or an ethics officer — before taking any action on the directive.
Immediately upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive during design development review
Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Shadyvale Policy Violation
Engineer W's direction to revise the design was motivated by genuine concern for Shadyvale's residents and awareness of project efficiencies, not personal gain — but the Board found that benevolent motives do not cure the ethical violation of covertly diverting $700,000 of DOT funds.
Benevolent Motive Non-Justification for Policy Violation Obligation
Engineer W was obligated to recognize that his altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale did not render ethically permissible his direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT cost-allocation policy, and to refrain from using benevolent intent as a justification for proceeding with the policy-violating directive.
At the time Engineer W formulated and communicated the directive to Engineer Intern D
If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do.
In the present case, the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy.
While Engineer W's direct solution in Shadyvale may well be efficient and optimal, helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth.
Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation Obligation
Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — for the purpose of triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation provision — constitutes the use of engineering design authority to circumvent an explicit agency policy, which is analogous to aiding an unlawful or improper practice.
Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious 'unavoidable' utility conflict — recognizing that such manipulation constitutes an improper use of engineering authority to circumvent an explicit agency policy and potentially constitutes a form of procurement fraud against the public agency.
At the time of directing the design revision
Honesty Invoked in Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Negotiation
Engineering subsidiary sale negotiation with Engineer Baker
Engineer Adam's statement to Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' — when Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest — constituted an artfully misleading representation designed to obscure the truth and create false urgency in the negotiation, violating the hallmark quality of honesty required of practicing engineers
In this context, honesty requires that Engineer Adam accurately represent the state of competing interest in the subsidiary rather than exploiting Engineer Mary's earlier — and since withdrawn — interest to create false competitive pressure; the Board finds that full disclosure of the circumstances would have changed the ethical evaluation
{'license': 'Engineer Intern (EI), about to sit for PE exam', 'position': 'Engineer Intern, State DOT', 'design_action': 'Initiated compliant design layout avoiding utility conflicts'}
Engineer intern assigned to design the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project who independently produces a policy-compliant design avoiding utility conflicts, and is then subjected to indirect supervisory pressure from Engineer W to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main in violation of DOT cost-allocation policy.
{'type': 'design_subject', 'target': 'Shadyvale Water Main'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer'}
Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main
Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D
Engineer Intern D had independently produced a DOT policy-compliant design avoiding the old water main and was subsequently subjected to an indirect supervisory directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy and divert approximately $700,000 of DOT funds.
Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to implement Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised work, recognizing that the supervisor's willingness to seal the document does not relieve the intern of independent ethical responsibility to decline participation in a policy-violating design.
Upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design
Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design may have been intended to reassure Engineer Intern D that professional responsibility for the revision would rest with Engineer W. However, the ethics code does not permit a subordinate to implement a known policy violation on the basis of a supervisor's promise to assume responsibility, particularly when the subordinate is aware of the policy conflict.
Engineer Intern D was obligated to recognize that Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical responsibility to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision — and that proceeding with the revision in reliance on the sign-off promise would constitute complicity in the policy violation regardless of who ultimately seals the document.
Upon receipt of Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design
Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Conflict
Conflict between Engineer W's directive and DOT cost-allocation policy
Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above Engineer W, rather than either silently complying or unilaterally refusing without escalation
The intern's epistemic humility obligation — which normally requires deference to supervisory judgment on questions of materiality — does not require deference when the supervisor's directive clearly conflicts with an unambiguous mandatory policy; in such cases, the obligation transforms into a duty to escalate the conflict to appropriate authority above the supervisor
Engineer W's directive to revise the design appears motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 water main replacement. While the motivation is understandable, it does not justify circumventing the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy, which is analogous to the prohibition on subordinating public safety obligations to political or budgetary bargaining.
Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Obligation
Engineer W was obligated to refrain from subordinating the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy to sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — recognizing that the policy exists to protect the integrity of public procurement and the equitable allocation of public funds, and that financial sympathy for a municipality does not constitute a legitimate basis for circumventing an explicit agency policy.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by senior DOT engineer role)', 'position': 'Senior DOT Engineer', 'authority': 'Project oversight, sign-off authority, supervisory authority over Engineer Intern D'}
Senior DOT engineer responsible for the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project who delegates design to Engineer Intern D and then indirectly pressures the intern to revise the design to artificially create a utility conflict with the old water main, contrary to DOT policy, offering to sign off on the revised design.
{'type': 'indirect_benefactor', 'target': 'Shadyvale Municipality'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern'}