ProEthica Case 92 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.242371
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Reduced Role Passively
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
foreseen unintended effects: Allowing an unlicensed technician to hold responsible charge of a public safety system without licensed PE oversight
foreseen unintended effects: Continued public health risk without licensed engineering oversight of the sanitary system
foreseen unintended effects: Implicitly legitimizing Administrator C's circumvention of engineering authority
guided by principle text: Engineers shall not permit their professional authority to be overridden by non-engineers on safety matters
guided by principle text: Obligation to report improper assumption of engineering responsibility by unqualified persons
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: acquiescent but conflicted
intended outcome: Retain employment and nominal position as City Engineer while avoiding direct confrontation with Administrator C over the reassignment
requires capability text: Judgment on when administrative reassignment crosses into unlawful or unethical territory
requires capability text: Knowledge of PE licensure requirements for responsible charge
requires capability text: Understanding of legal and ethical obligations when engineering authority is usurped
temporal marker: After receiving Administrator C's letter removing her from sanitary system responsibility and placing Technician B in charge
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Obligation not to allow professional authority to be circumvented by non-engineers on public safety matters
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure licensed PE oversight of public safety engineering systems
violates obligation text: Obligation to report to proper authorities when non-engineer assumes responsible charge of engineering work
violates obligation text: Obligation to withdraw from project and report to proper authorities when public safety is endangered
within competence: true
comment: After being formally removed from responsibility for the sanitary system by Administrator C's letter placing Technician B in direct charge, Engineer A accepted the reduced role and assumed no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, without formally protesting this reassignment to any authority.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Accept Reduced Role Passively (Action 4) + Decline to Report to State Authority (Action 6) → Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes (Event 7)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After being formally removed from responsibility for the sanitary system by Administrator C's letter, Engineer A accepted the reduced role passively and subsequently declined to report to state authority, together constituting a failure to exercise the last available professional mechanism to prevent the foreseeable public health crisis
cause: Accept Reduced Role Passively (Action 4) + Decline to Report to State Authority (Action 6)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A reported to state authority at any point after internal channels were exhausted, particularly after formal removal, regulatory intervention could have prevented the crisis; passive acceptance alone did not cause the crisis but eliminated the most effective remaining safeguard
effect: Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes (Event 7)
necessary factors: Administrator C's removal of Engineer A from oversight
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision not to report to state authority
necessary factors: Engineer A's passive acceptance of removal without external escalation
necessary factors: The foreseeable triggering event (storms + canning season)
necessary factors: The system's continued inadequacy
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (significant contributory); Administrator C (primary causal agent)
sufficient factors: Passive acceptance of removal + failure to report externally + known system inadequacy + triggering natural event = realized crisis
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Communication Channeling Directive — Safety Reporting Non-Compliance
type: Non-EngineerAdministrativeAuthorityEngineeringCommunicationChannelingNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C ordered Engineer A to discuss sanitary system problems only with him and warned that her job was in danger if she disobeyed, effectively attempting to suppress all external safety escalation through an administrative communication protocol.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Administrative Authority Engineering Communication Channeling Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from complying with Administrator C's directive to channel all sanitary system communications exclusively through him, to the extent that such compliance would suppress mandatory regulatory reporting to the state water pollution control authority or prevent escalation of imminent public safety hazards to city council members and other proper authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1; state water pollution control reporting law; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: From the date of Administrator C's communication restriction order through the resolution of the overflow crisis
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.260855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Deferred Problem Resolution Safety Deferral — Sanitary System Overflow
type: DeferredProblemResolutionSafetyDeferralNon-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C responded to Engineer A's overflow capacity warnings with a deferral posture, which the Board found did not discharge Engineer A's escalation obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Deferred Problem Resolution Safety Deferral Non-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting Administrator C's 'we will face the problem when it comes' deferral posture as a legitimate resolution of the identified imminent sanitary system overflow risk; such temporal deferral by a non-engineer authority did not discharge Engineer A's obligation to escalate to state water pollution control authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council
temporalscope: At the point Administrator C deferred action on Engineer A's overflow capacity warnings
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue
textreferences: such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.243793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C 'Face the Problem When It Comes' Deferral — Non-Acceptance by Engineer A
type: DeferredProblemResolutionSafetyDeferralNon-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After Engineer A notified Administrator C of inadequate capacity and offered possible solutions, Administrator C responded with a temporal deferral rather than corrective action, which Engineer A was ethically prohibited from treating as a sufficient response.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Deferred Problem Resolution Safety Deferral Non-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting Administrator C's 'we will face the problem when it comes' response as a legitimate resolution of the identified inadequate capacity risk, and was required to treat this deferral as a trigger for further escalation to city council members and ultimately to state regulatory authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Non-Engineer Manager Safety Decision Finality Prohibition; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
temporalscope: From the date of Administrator C's deferral response through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Non-Engineer Administrative Authority Engineering Communication Channeling — Sanitary System
type: Non-EngineerAdministrativeAuthorityEngineeringCommunicationChannelingNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C directed Engineer A to channel all sanitary system communications through himself, effectively suppressing mandatory external reporting to state water pollution control authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Administrative Authority Engineering Communication Channeling Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from complying with Administrator C's directive to channel all sanitary system safety communications exclusively through him, because the effect of such channeling was to suppress mandatory regulatory reporting to state water pollution control authorities and prevent escalation of imminent public safety hazards.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
temporalscope: Throughout the period Administrator C directed Engineer A to channel all communications through him
textreferences: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.243645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Non-Engineer Manager Safety Authority Boundary Recognition Failure
type: Non-EngineerManagerSafetyAuthorityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Manager Safety Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Administrator C lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize the limits of non-engineering administrative authority over safety-critical engineering determinations, instead substituting managerial judgment for professional engineering safety findings and suppressing Engineer A's overflow warnings.
casecontext: Demonstrated through Administrator C's pattern of dismissing, suppressing, and ultimately removing Engineer A from responsible charge rather than facilitating corrective action in response to her professional safety findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Administrator C dismissed Engineer A's overflow warnings with 'we will face the problem when it comes,' ordered Engineer A not to discuss the matter, and ultimately removed Engineer A from responsible charge — all actions exceeding legitimate non-engineer administrative authority over engineering safety.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Administrator C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.264276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Prohibition on Reassigning Responsible Charge to Technician B
type: AdministrativeResponsibleChargeReassignmenttoUnlicensedPersonnelProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C removed Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system by letter instructing Technician B to take responsible charge and report directly to Administrator C, bypassing the licensed PE entirely.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Administrator C
constraintclass: Administrative Responsible Charge Reassignment to Unlicensed Personnel Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Administrator C was prohibited from formally reassigning engineering responsible charge of the city sanitary system from licensed PE Engineer A to unlicensed Technician B, as this constituted an impermissible administrative conferral of a professional-legal designation that can only be held by a licensed professional engineer.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State engineering practice act; NSPE Code Section II.1.e; professional licensing regulations
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
temporalscope: From the date of the letter formally reassigning responsible charge to Technician B
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.260549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator Dismisses Concerns
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Escalate_Unresolved_Hazard_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Internal reporting channel is exhausted without resolution; the safety hazard remains active; Engineer A's obligation to escalate is now triggered
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Consider_External_Reporting
creates obligation: Document_Dismissal_Of_Concerns
creates obligation: Escalate_Beyond_Immediate_Supervisor
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Immediately following Engineer A's notification to Administrator C
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: high
comment: City Administrator C receives Engineer A's report of sanitary system inadequacy and dismisses her concerns without remedial action. This organizational rejection of a legitimate safety finding creates an unresolved hazard and forces Engineer A to choose between deference to authority and her professional obligations.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator Dismisses Concerns (Event 2) → Privately Contact Council Members (Action 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After Administrator C dismissed her concerns with 'we will face the problem when it comes,' Engineer A escalated by privately contacting council members to communicate the unresolved public health risk
cause: Administrator Dismisses Concerns (Event 2)
counterfactual: Had Administrator C taken meaningful action, Engineer A would have had no reason to contact council members privately
effect: Privately Contact Council Members (Action 2)
necessary factors: Absence of any remedial action by Administrator C
necessary factors: Administrator C's explicit dismissal of Engineer A's formal report
necessary factors: Engineer A's continued belief that the public health risk was real and unresolved
necessary factors: Engineer A's knowledge of alternative internal channels (city council members)
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); Administrator C (contributing)
sufficient factors: Dismissal of formal report + unresolved public health danger + availability of council as alternative authority
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Again Contact City Officials Privately
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
foreseen unintended effects: City officials may still fail to act, leaving Engineer A exposed without having resolved the problem
foreseen unintended effects: Direct insubordination with high probability of disciplinary consequences
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of termination
fulfills obligation text: Exercise professional courage in face of employment threat
fulfills obligation text: Hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare
fulfills obligation text: Persist in reporting public health danger despite employer resistance
guided by principle text: Ethical obligation to report known dangers even at personal cost
guided by principle text: Professional obligation supersedes employer directives when public safety is at stake
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Compel city officials to take action on the public health risk despite Administrator C's suppression of the issue, prioritizing public welfare over personal job security
requires capability text: Judgment on adequacy of internal escalation channels
requires capability text: Professional courage to act against explicit employer directive
requires capability text: Technical communication of ongoing risk to city officials
temporal marker: After Administrator C's explicit warning and job threat, before Engineer A's removal from sanitary system responsibility
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Explicit directive from City Administrator C not to discuss the matter
violates obligation text: Organizational chain-of-command compliance
within competence: true
comment: After Administrator C explicitly warned Engineer A that her job was in danger and ordered her to discuss the problem only with him, Engineer A again privately brought the sanitary system problem to other city officials.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

BER_Case_65-12
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 65-12
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case 65-12, we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe, and we determined that the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
textreferences: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: In Case 65-12, we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe, and we determined that the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
textreferences: We recognized in that case that such action by the engineers would likely lead to the loss of employment.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers are ethically justified in refusing to participate in production or processing of a product they believe to be unsafe, even at the risk of loss of employment; used analogically to support Engineer A's obligation to act on public safety concerns
version: 1965
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.256081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

BER_Case_82-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 82-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, in Case 82-5, the engineer was employed by a large industrial company and after reviewing plans for materials supplied by a subcontractor, determined that they were inadequate both from a design and a cost stand point and therefore should be rejected.
textreferences: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: In finding that an engineer does not have an ethical obligation to continue an effort to secure a change in the policy of an employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to the proper authority, we stated, nevertheless, that the engineer has an ethical 'right' to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: More recently, in Case 82-5, the engineer was employed by a large industrial company and after reviewing plans for materials supplied by a subcontractor, determined that they were inadequate both from a design and a cost stand point and therefore should be rejected.
textreferences: We concluded that 'the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare.'
textreferences: We emphasized, however, that the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee.
textreferences: the situation presented has become well known in recent years as 'whistleblowing' and if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of action is improper when it relates to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as the most directly relevant precedent: distinguishes between an internal employer-employee dispute (where the engineer has an ethical 'right' but not 'obligation' to blow the whistle) and situations involving public safety endangerment (where the engineer has an ethical 'obligation' to report and withdraw); also introduces the concept of whistleblowing and its employment consequences in the engineering context
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.256250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

BER Ethics Board BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation Application
type: BERThree-PrecedentPublicHealthSafetyThresholdTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE BER demonstrated the capability to triangulate among Cases 65-12, 82-5, and the present case to identify the critical factual variable — direct danger to public health and safety — that determines whether escalation is a mandatory ethical duty versus a permissible personal conscience right.
casecontext: The BER applied this triangulation capability in its formal ethical analysis to determine the correct normative category for Engineer A's situation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: The BER's systematic analysis of Cases 65-12 and 82-5 to establish the normative framework, and its application of that framework to determine that Engineer A had a mandatory ethical obligation in the present case.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar circumstances.
textreferences: In Case 65-12, we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe...
textreferences: More recently, in Case 82-5, the engineer was employed by a large industrial company...
textreferences: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar circumstances.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 65-12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 65-12 Engineers Group Unsafe Process Refusing Industrial Engineer
type: UnsafeProductRefusingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineers (implied)', 'sector': 'Industrial/manufacturing', 'case_reference': 'Case 65-12', 'group_action': True}
caseinvolvement: Group of engineers referenced from Case 65-12 who believed certain machinery was unsafe and were determined to be ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question, establishing the precedent that engineers may refuse unsafe work even at the cost of employment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'refuses_participation_in', 'target': 'Unsafe Machinery Processing'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unsafe Product Refusing Engineer
sourcetext: a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe
textreferences: a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe
textreferences: we determined that the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
textreferences: we recognized in that case that such action by the engineers would likely lead to the loss of employment
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.259217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 65-12 before Case 82-5
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions... In Case 65-12... More recently, in Case 82-5
from entity text: Case 65-12
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Case 82-5
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Case 82-5
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 82-5 Industrial Engineer Private Industry Safety Whistleblower Engineer
type: PrivateIndustrySafetyWhistleblowerEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'sector': 'Private industrial', 'case_reference': 'Case 82-5'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer referenced from Case 82-5 who, employed by a large industrial company, identified design and cost deficiencies in subcontractor materials, reported to superiors whose recommendations were rejected, was placed on probation, and faced termination — establishing the precedent that engineers have an ethical right (not obligation) to blow the whistle on employer conduct related to public concerns.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Large Industrial Company Employer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Industrial Company Superiors'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Private Industry Safety Whistleblower Engineer
sourcetext: the engineer was employed by a large industrial company and after reviewing plans for materials supplied by a subcontractor, determined that they were inadequate both from a design and a cost stand point
textreferences: the engineer advised his superiors of the deficiencies but his recommendations were rejected
textreferences: the engineer has an ethical 'right' to do so as a matter of personal conscience
textreferences: the engineer persisted with his recommendations and was placed on probation
textreferences: the engineer was employed by a large industrial company and after reviewing plans for materials supplied by a subcontractor, determined that they were inadequate both from a design and a cost stand point
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.259035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 82-5 before current case analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More recently, in Case 82-5, the engineer was employed by a large industrial company... Clearly, the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare'
from entity text: Case 82-5
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current case analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current case analysis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 92 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 7
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Reduced Role Passively
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

CausalLink_Again Contact City Officials P
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

CausalLink_Covertly Advise Technician B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

CausalLink_Decline to Report to State Aut
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

CausalLink_Notify Administrator of Inadeq
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

CausalLink_Privately Contact Council Memb
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

City Administrator C Safety-Suppressing Non-Engineer Municipal Administrator
type: Safety-SuppressingNon-EngineerMunicipalAdministrator
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'title': 'City Administrator', 'authority': 'Direct supervisor of City Engineer'}
caseinvolvement: Non-engineer immediate superior of Engineer A who received internal reports of water supply contamination risk and demonstrated a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law, failing to act on Engineer A's recommendations and effectively suppressing escalation to proper authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Water Supply Contamination Reporting Public Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'suppresses_escalation_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Water Supply Contamination Reporting Public Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Safety-Suppressing Non-Engineer Municipal Administrator
sourcetext: Engineer A has fulfilled this specific aspect of her obligation by reporting her concerns to City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A has fulfilled this specific aspect of her obligation by reporting her concerns to City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.258574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

City Administrator C's communication restriction order before Engineer A's second unauthorized contact with city officials
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys. Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
from entity text: City Administrator C's communication restriction order
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's second unauthorized contact with city officials
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s second unauthorized contact with city
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

City Council Members Political Authority
type: CityCouncilPoliticalAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Elected legislative/political authority', 'license': 'None (non-engineers)'}
caseinvolvement: Elected city council members who received Engineer A's internal reports of water supply contamination risk but failed to act, participating in the pattern of ongoing disregard for the law that necessitated escalation to state authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'fails_to_act_on', 'target': 'Water Supply Contamination Risk'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Water Supply Contamination Reporting Public Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: City Council Political Authority
sourcetext: reporting her concerns to City Administrator C and thereafter to certain members of the city council
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
textreferences: reporting her concerns to City Administrator C and thereafter to certain members of the city council
textreferences: the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.258724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

City Council Members Safety Escalation Recipients
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (elected officials)', 'position': 'City Council Members', 'role_in_case': "Recipients of Engineer A's unauthorized escalation"}
caseinvolvement: Elected city officials to whom Engineer A privately escalated the sanitary system capacity problem without Administrator C's permission; recipients of informal safety warnings outside the formal chain of command.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'received_warning_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_authority_of', 'target': 'City Administrator C (administratively)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.257046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Communications Restriction Imposed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Seek_Alternative_Reporting_Channels_Constraint
activates constraint: Whistleblower_Protection_Consideration_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's internal communication channels are now formally restricted; organizational pressure against safety reporting has been institutionalized
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Restriction_As_Retaliation_Context
creates obligation: Evaluate_External_Reporting_To_State_Authority
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A's first private contact with council members
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: medium
comment: Following Engineer A's unauthorized contact with city council members, Administrator C formally restricts Engineer A's ability to communicate with city officials without prior permission. This administrative action constrains Engineer A's ability to use internal escalation channels going forward.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Communications Restriction Imposed (Event 3) + Engineer A Removed From Role (Event 4) → Technician B Placed In Charge (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility for the sanitary system and places unlicensed Technician B in charge, directly substituting unqualified oversight for qualified professional engineering judgment
cause: Communications Restriction Imposed (Event 3) + Engineer A Removed From Role (Event 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A not been removed, a licensed engineer would have retained oversight; had a licensed replacement been appointed, the competency gap would not have materialized
effect: Technician B Placed In Charge (Event 5)
necessary factors: Absence of any requirement enforced by the city to maintain licensed oversight
necessary factors: Administrator C's authority to reassign personnel
necessary factors: Administrator C's decision to remove Engineer A
necessary factors: Availability of Technician B as a replacement
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Administrator C (primary)
sufficient factors: Administrative authority to reassign + removal of Engineer A + appointment of unlicensed Technician B
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A did not fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the City Administrator and certain members of the city council of her concerns.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by limiting escalation to City Administrator C and certain council members, Engineer A committed a distinct and independent ethical violation by passively accepting the reassignment of responsible charge over the sanitary system to unlicensed Technician B. The NSPE Code's prohibition against completing or sealing work not in conformity with applicable engineering standards, read alongside the paramount public safety obligation, implies an affirmative duty to formally resist — not merely privately circumvent — an administratively imposed transfer of engineering authority to an unlicensed person over a public safety system. Engineer A's covert advisory to Technician B, conducted without Administrator C's knowledge, did not cure this violation; it merely created a shadow engineering arrangement that left the public exposed to the legal and practical consequences of unlicensed responsible charge while giving Engineer A a false sense of partial compliance. The ethical obligation required Engineer A to formally object in writing to the reassignment, document that objection, and if overruled, escalate that specific violation — the unlicensed practice issue — to the appropriate authority, independent of and in addition to her obligation to report the overflow risk to the state water pollution control authority.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A did not fulfill her ethical obligations implicitly identifies a precise triggering point that the Board left underarticulated: Engineer A's ethical obligation to report externally to the state water pollution control authority became mandatory — not merely permissible — no later than the moment City Administrator C removed her from responsible charge and placed unlicensed Technician B in command of the sanitary system. At that juncture, three conditions converged simultaneously: internal escalation had been exhausted and actively suppressed, the engineering safety system was being operated without licensed oversight, and the known overflow risk remained unmitigated. Each of these conditions independently would have counseled external reporting; their convergence made it non-deferrable. The subsequent materialization of the imminent overflow crisis during the winter canning season did not create Engineer A's reporting obligation — it merely confirmed that the danger she had already identified was real and immediate. Framing the obligation as arising only at the moment of imminent overflow, as the facts might suggest, understates the ethical standard: Engineer A should have reported to the state water pollution control authority when the internal system of oversight collapsed, not only when the physical crisis became undeniable.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer A's internal escalation was ethically insufficient exposes a deeper structural tension that the Board did not resolve: Engineer A's role as a public employee — City Engineer and Director of Public Works — imposed a heightened and non-waivable duty to report to the state water pollution control authority that was categorically different from the discretionary whistleblowing calculus applicable to engineers in private practice. In private employment, the NSPE Code's framework for balancing faithful agent obligations against public safety reporting involves a graduated analysis in which employment consequences are weighed. For a public engineer holding a statutory public trust, however, the faithful agent obligation itself is defined by the public interest, not by the directives of a non-engineer municipal administrator. City Administrator C's authority to direct Engineer A's conduct was bounded by the limits of lawful administrative authority; it did not and could not extend to ordering Engineer A to suppress a mandatory statutory report to a state regulatory body. When Administrator C ordered Engineer A not to report to the state water pollution control authority — an order that directly required Engineer A to violate state law — that order was void as a matter of both law and professional ethics, and Engineer A's compliance with it constituted an independent ethical failure. The Board should have explicitly stated that no employment threat, however credible, can convert a mandatory statutory reporting obligation into a discretionary personal choice, and that Engineer A's status as a public servant made this principle even more stringent than it would be in a private practice context.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer A's passive acceptance of the reassignment of responsible charge to unlicensed Technician B constituted a separate and independent ethical violation beyond her failure to report to the state water pollution control authority. By receiving the memo reassigning responsible charge and continuing in her role without formally objecting, resigning from the position, or reporting the unlicensed practice arrangement to the appropriate licensing authority, Engineer A effectively facilitated the unlicensed practice of engineering over a public safety system. The NSPE Code's prohibition against completing or sealing plans not in conformity with applicable engineering standards extends by analogy to acquiescing in an administrative arrangement that places a non-licensed technician in responsible charge of a sanitary system whose failure could cause widespread environmental harm. Engineer A's covert advisory role did not cure this violation — it merely preserved a shadow of technical oversight while the formal, legally cognizable responsible charge was held by someone unqualified to hold it. The two violations are analytically distinct: one concerns the failure to report an imminent environmental hazard to the state regulatory authority; the other concerns the failure to resist or formally challenge an unlicensed practice arrangement that itself endangered public safety independently of the overflow crisis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A's ethical obligation to report externally to the state water pollution control authority became mandatory — not merely permissible — at the moment Administrator C responded to her initial warning with 'we will face the problem when it comes' and then restricted her communications. At that precise juncture, the internal escalation pathway was effectively foreclosed by the person with authority over it, and the danger to public safety was both identified and unaddressed. Each subsequent event — the unauthorized council contacts, the removal from responsible charge, the probation order, and finally the imminent overflow crisis — compounded the urgency but did not create the obligation anew; it had already crystallized. The graduated internal escalation principle, which Engineer A arguably satisfied by warning Administrator C and privately contacting council members, does not extend indefinitely when the supervisor with authority over the matter has explicitly refused to act and has weaponized the employment relationship to suppress further escalation. At that point, the Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger was activated, and the Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation became non-deferrable. The imminent overflow crisis during the winter canning season was not the trigger for the obligation — it was the consequence of Engineer A's failure to act on an obligation that had already matured weeks or months earlier.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Engineer A's covert advisory role to Technician B did not satisfy any meaningful portion of her ethical obligation to protect public safety and instead created a dangerous illusion of technical oversight while leaving the fundamental public danger unaddressed through proper regulatory channels. The covert advisory arrangement had three critical deficiencies. First, it was structurally invisible to the regulatory system: because Administrator C had formally placed Technician B in responsible charge, any advice Engineer A provided was legally and administratively unattributed, meaning the state water pollution control authority had no basis to know that any licensed engineering judgment was being applied to the system. Second, the arrangement was inherently fragile — Administrator C's memo explicitly instructed Technician B to report any interference by a third party, meaning Engineer A's covert advice could be terminated at any moment, leaving Technician B entirely unsupported. Third, and most critically, the covert advisory arrangement did nothing to address the structural inadequacy of the sanitary system's capacity, which was the root cause of the public danger. Engineer A's ethical obligation was not merely to provide informal technical guidance to an unlicensed technician but to ensure that the proper regulatory authority was informed of an imminent statutory violation. The covert advisory role addressed none of that obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer A's failure to report the imminent overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority exposed her to legal liability independent of and in addition to her ethical violations under the NSPE Code. State law explicitly required reporting this condition to the state water pollution control authority, making Engineer A's silence a potential statutory violation in its own right. The Board's analysis, while ethically sound, did not directly address this intersection of statutory duty and professional ethical duty, which is a significant analytical gap. The statutory reporting obligation was not contingent on Administrator C's permission, was not subject to the employment relationship, and was not dischargeable by internal escalation to city officials. It was a direct legal duty imposed on persons with knowledge of the condition — and Engineer A unambiguously had that knowledge. The convergence of the statutory duty and the NSPE Code's paramount public safety obligation means that Engineer A faced not a conflict between law and ethics but a reinforcing alignment of both, pointing unambiguously toward external reporting. Administrator C's order not to discuss the matter further could not lawfully override a statutory reporting obligation, and Engineer A's compliance with that order in the face of an imminent statutory violation compounded her ethical failure with potential legal exposure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: When the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle are genuinely irreconcilable — as they were here — the Public Welfare Paramount principle must yield to no other consideration, including employer loyalty. The NSPE Code's structure is hierarchical, not merely advisory: Section I.1 places public safety, health, and welfare paramount, and Section II.1.a explicitly addresses the scenario where an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, requiring notification to the proper authority. The Faithful Agent Obligation under Section II.4 is explicitly bounded by the phrase 'within ethical limits,' which means it cannot be invoked to justify silence in the face of an imminent public health catastrophe. Administrator C's directives — to restrict communications, to accept removal from responsible charge, and to refrain from discussing the matter under threat of termination — were each individually and collectively beyond the lawful scope of a non-engineer administrator's authority to direct a licensed professional engineer's conduct with respect to mandatory public safety obligations. Engineer A's compliance with those directives did not represent faithful agency within ethical limits; it represented the subordination of a paramount professional duty to an employment relationship, which the Code explicitly prohibits.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 303
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed her categorical duty to protect public safety by limiting her escalation to Administrator C and select council members. The NSPE Code imposes a paramount obligation — not a contextual preference — to hold public safety above all other considerations. A categorical duty does not admit of partial performance: Engineer A cannot satisfy a duty to report an imminent public health hazard by reporting it to persons who lack the authority or the will to act on it. City council members, contacted privately and without formal authority to compel remediation, were not the 'proper authority' contemplated by Section II.1.a. The state water pollution control authority was the legally designated proper authority, and Engineer A's failure to contact it was not a matter of degree but of kind. From a consequentialist perspective, the outcome — an imminent uncontrolled waste discharge into the river — retroactively confirms that Engineer A's partial escalation was not merely insufficient in degree but causally connected to the worst foreseeable outcome. From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's accommodation of Administrator C's suppression — accepting removal from responsible charge, continuing only covert advisory, and declining to report to the state authority — reflected a failure of the virtues of courage and professional accountability that a licensed public engineer in a position of singular responsibility is obligated to embody. All three ethical frameworks converge on the same conclusion: Engineer A's conduct was ethically insufficient.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 402
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The Board would very likely have found Engineer A's ethical obligations fulfilled if she had formally reported the sanitary system overflow risk to the state water pollution control authority at the moment Administrator C first dismissed her concerns. At that juncture, the internal escalation pathway had been exhausted at the supervisory level, the danger was identified and quantified, and the proper external authority was clearly the state water pollution control authority under the applicable state law. Reporting at that moment would have satisfied the Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger, the Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation, and the Public Welfare Paramount principle simultaneously. Conversely, if Engineer A had resigned from her position without concurrently reporting to the state water pollution control authority, she would not have discharged her ethical obligations. Resignation without reporting would have removed her from the employment pressure but would have left the public danger entirely unaddressed and the state regulatory authority uninformed. The ethical obligation to report is not discharged by withdrawal from the situation — it is discharged only by ensuring that the proper authority receives the information necessary to protect public safety. Had Engineer A formally and openly continued advising Technician B, simultaneously documented her concerns in writing to both the city council and the state water pollution control authority, that combined course of action would most likely have satisfied the Board's standard, even under threat of termination, because it would have placed the mandatory statutory report with the proper authority while preserving a record of Engineer A's professional conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: Even if the city council members whom Engineer A privately contacted had taken decisive corrective action and ordered remediation of the sanitary system before the canning and rainy seasons coincided, the Board's framework would likely still require that Engineer A have reported to the state water pollution control authority, because the statutory reporting obligation was triggered by the condition itself — not by the failure of internal remediation. The Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable principle is not contingent on whether internal escalation might succeed; it is activated by the existence of a reportable condition under state law. The state water pollution control authority's role is not merely remedial — it is regulatory and supervisory, and its right to be informed of conditions within its jurisdiction exists independently of whether the regulated entity is taking corrective action. However, the Board's analysis might have acknowledged that successful internal remediation would have substantially mitigated the ethical harm, even if it did not fully discharge the statutory reporting obligation. The distinction between the ethical obligation and the statutory obligation is important here: the ethical obligation might be satisfied by successful internal escalation that prevents the harm, but the statutory obligation — which is non-discretionary — would remain independently unfulfilled absent the required report to the state authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: The Whistleblowing Right versus Obligation Distinction — which frames external reporting as a personal conscience choice — is fundamentally inapplicable to Engineer A's situation, and the Board's framework implicitly recognizes this even if it does not articulate it explicitly. Engineer A's role as City Engineer and Director of Public Works, as the sole licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government, and as the person with direct statutory knowledge of an imminent reportable condition under state law, converted what might be a discretionary whistleblowing right in private practice into a non-negotiable professional and legal obligation. The Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation principle applies with particular force here: Engineer A held a public trust role, was compensated by public funds, and was responsible for a public safety system. Her obligation to the public she served was not mediated by her employment relationship with Administrator C in the way that a private sector engineer's obligation might be mediated by a client relationship. The termination threat, while real and serious, did not alter the nature of the obligation — it merely raised the personal cost of fulfilling it. The NSPE Code explicitly contemplates that engineers may face employment consequences for fulfilling their public safety obligations and implicitly requires acceptance of those consequences when the alternative is allowing a foreseeable public health catastrophe to occur unreported.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was not genuinely resolved by Engineer A — it was evaded. Engineer A treated these two principles as though they occupied the same normative tier, allowing Administrator C's directives to function as a practical ceiling on her safety escalation. The NSPE Code, however, establishes a clear lexical ordering: public safety is paramount, and faithful agency operates only 'within ethical limits.' When Administrator C's orders directly prevented Engineer A from fulfilling her mandatory statutory reporting obligation to the state water pollution control authority, the Faithful Agent Obligation ceased to be operative. Engineer A's continued deference to Administrator C's communication restrictions after internal escalation had demonstrably failed — and after the imminent overflow crisis had materialized — reflects a category error: she treated a subordinate principle as though it could override the paramount one. This case teaches that when the two principles become irreconcilable in practice, the Faithful Agent Obligation must yield entirely and without qualification to the Public Welfare Paramount principle, not merely be 'balanced' against it.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting principle and the Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable principle are not genuinely in tension in this case — they operate on different timelines and different triggering conditions, and Engineer A's conflation of the two produced her central ethical failure. Graduated internal escalation is a procedural norm that governs how an engineer should sequence her efforts before going outside the organizational chain of command; it is satisfied when internal channels have been genuinely exhausted and have demonstrably failed. The Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation, by contrast, is a legal and ethical floor that is activated by the objective condition of imminent public danger — not by the subjective exhaustion of internal patience. By the time the winter storms materialized and overflow became imminent, both triggers had independently fired: internal escalation had been exhausted (Administrator C had dismissed concerns, restricted communications, removed Engineer A from responsible charge, and imposed probation), and the statutory reporting condition had been met (state law explicitly required reporting the overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority). Engineer A's error was treating the two principles as sequential steps in a single ladder rather than as independently operative obligations. This case teaches that once the statutory reporting trigger activates, no amount of prior internal escalation — however thorough — substitutes for or delays the mandatory external report.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance principle and the Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention Obligation reveal a deep structural contradiction in Engineer A's conduct that the Board's conclusion implicitly condemns but does not fully anatomize. By continuing to advise Technician B secretly, Engineer A simultaneously undermined two distinct ethical imperatives: she tacitly ratified the unlicensed responsible charge assignment by making it functionally workable — thereby facilitating unlicensed engineering practice over a public safety system — while creating a false appearance of safety oversight that may have reduced the perceived urgency of formal regulatory reporting. The covert advisory role was not a partial satisfaction of Engineer A's ethical obligations; it was an ethical liability in its own right. It allowed Administrator C's improper reassignment to persist without formal resistance, it left the state water pollution control authority uninformed of both the unlicensed practice and the imminent overflow risk, and it substituted a private workaround for the public accountability that the regulatory framework demands. This case teaches that covert compliance theater — doing informally and secretly what one is ethically required to do formally and openly — does not satisfy professional ethical obligations and may affirmatively deepen the engineer's complicity in the underlying violation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The Whistleblowing Right vs. Obligation Distinction principle is fundamentally transformed — and effectively dissolved — when applied to a licensed public engineer holding statutory responsibilities over a public safety system. In private practice contexts, external reporting beyond the client relationship may be framed as a matter of professional conscience, with the engineer exercising judgment about when the threshold of public danger justifies the step. But Engineer A's situation was categorically different: she was a public servant, the sole licensed professional engineer in city government, holding direct statutory responsibility for a system that state law explicitly required to be reported to a regulatory authority upon imminent overflow. The Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation principle converts what might be a discretionary whistleblowing right in private practice into a non-negotiable affirmative duty in Engineer A's context. The combination of her public trust role, the explicit statutory reporting requirement, and the imminent materialization of the overflow crisis left no ethical space for treating external reporting as a personal conscience election. This case teaches that the whistleblowing right-versus-obligation distinction is context-sensitive and role-sensitive: the more direct and statutory the engineer's public safety responsibility, the less room exists to treat external reporting as optional, and the more clearly it becomes a categorical professional obligation that employment pressure cannot lawfully or ethically displace.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Covertly Advise Technician B
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
foreseen unintended effects: Administrator C remained unaware, preventing any legitimate resolution of the authority structure
foreseen unintended effects: Covert advising without formal authority could create ambiguous liability
foreseen unintended effects: Technician B remained formally responsible without PE oversight on record
foreseen unintended effects: The arrangement did not constitute proper licensed engineering oversight of the system
fulfills obligation text: Partial attempt to maintain technical safety guidance over the system
fulfills obligation text: Some effort to protect public welfare through informal channel
guided by principle text: Engineers shall report to proper authorities, not substitute informal workarounds for formal reporting
guided by principle text: Professional integrity requires transparency in exercise of engineering authority
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and covert
intended outcome: Provide technical guidance to the unlicensed Technician B to reduce the risk of a public health crisis, while avoiding direct confrontation with Administrator C that could result in termination
requires capability text: Ability to communicate operational guidance to unlicensed technician
requires capability text: Judgment on adequacy of informal vs. formal oversight mechanisms
requires capability text: Technical knowledge of sanitary system operations
temporal marker: After removal from sanitary system responsibility and placement on probation, continuing through the winter canning season
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Obligation not to conceal professional activities from employer in ways that undermine legitimate authority structures
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure proper licensed PE oversight is formally in place for public safety systems
violates obligation text: Obligation to report to proper authorities (state water pollution control authority) rather than operate covertly
violates obligation text: Obligation to withdraw formally from project and report when public safety is endangered
within competence: true
comment: While officially holding no responsibility for the sanitary system, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B on the sanitary system without the knowledge of City Administrator C, attempting to maintain informal technical oversight despite her formal removal.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Covertly Advise Technician B (Action 5) → Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes (Event 7)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: While officially holding no responsibility for the sanitary system, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly, creating an ambiguous arrangement that neither restored licensed oversight nor triggered external regulatory intervention, leaving the system in a state of informal and inadequate management
cause: Covertly Advise Technician B (Action 5)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A either formally retained responsibility or reported to state authority instead of covert advising, the oversight gap would have been addressed through legitimate channels; the covert arrangement provided a false sense of mitigation without resolving the structural problem
effect: Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes (Event 7)
necessary factors: Engineer A's continued knowledge of system risks
necessary factors: Engineer A's removal from formal responsibility
necessary factors: Technician B's willingness to receive covert advice
necessary factors: The covert arrangement remaining undisclosed to state authorities
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer A (contributing); Administrator C (primary)
sufficient factors: Informal advisory role without formal authority + unlicensed technician in formal charge + no state reporting = continued inadequate oversight
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: When City Administrator C dismisses the overflow risk and prohibits further escalation, should Engineer A accept the deferral and remain within the chain of command, escalate privately to city council members despite the prohibition, or immediately report to the state water pollution control authority?
focus: Engineer A has identified that the disposal plant and beds lack adequate capacity to handle the coincidence of canning season industrial discharge and rainy season stormwater, creating an imminent overflow risk. She has notified City Administrator C, who dismissed the concern with a 'we will face the problem when it comes' deferral and restricted her from communicating directly with city council members. At this juncture, Engineer A must decide whether to accept the administrator's deferral or escalate beyond the immediate supervisor.
option1: Comply with Administrator C's directive, document the warning internally, and take no further escalation action until the overflow condition materializes, subordinating professional safety judgment to administrative convenience.
option2: Contact select city council members privately without Administrator C's permission to warn of the imminent overflow risk, fulfilling the graduated internal escalation obligation by reaching the next tier of internal authority despite the employer's communication channeling prohibition.
option3: Bypass remaining internal channels and report the imminent overflow condition directly to the state regulatory authority, invoking the statutory reporting obligation and treating Administrator C's dismissal as sufficient evidence that internal escalation is futile.
role label: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: When Administrator C formally assigns engineering responsible charge to an unlicensed technician, removes Engineer A from authority, and threatens termination, should Engineer A passively accept the reduced role, formally resist the unlicensed assignment through escalation, or report the imminent overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority at the cost of potential termination?
focus: Engineer A has privately contacted city council members, but they have taken no corrective action. Administrator C has now formally assigned 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system to unlicensed Technician B via letter and memo, explicitly removing Engineer A from the chain of command and placing her on probation with a termination threat. The overflow crisis is imminent. Engineer A must decide how to respond to this formal reassignment and the escalating employment pressure.
option1: Comply with Administrator C's reassignment directive, cease asserting engineering authority over the sanitary system, and allow Technician B's responsible charge designation to stand unchallenged in order to preserve employment.
option2: Issue a formal written objection to Administrator C's assignment of responsible charge to an unlicensed technician, document the professional licensure law violation, and make a final internal escalation to city council members asserting that the assignment is unlawful and must be reversed.
option3: Report the imminent wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority as required by statute, simultaneously notifying the state of the unlicensed responsible charge assignment, accepting that this action may result in termination as the mandatory cost of fulfilling the public safety obligation.
role label: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A covertly advise Technician B on sanitary system management as a safety-preservation measure, or should she treat covert advisory as an ethically insufficient substitute for the mandatory external reporting and genuine project withdrawal obligations she has not yet fulfilled?
focus: Having been formally removed from responsible charge and placed on probation, Engineer A has not reported to the state water pollution control authority. She is now aware that Technician B, who lacks the competence to manage the sanitary system safely, is solely responsible for a system facing imminent overflow. Engineer A must decide whether to continue providing technical guidance to Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — as a means of mitigating immediate safety risk while avoiding termination.
option1: Continue providing technical guidance to Technician B secretly, reasoning that this partially mitigates immediate public safety risk in the absence of any other available mechanism, while avoiding the termination that overt advisory or external reporting would trigger.
option2: Terminate all professional involvement with the sanitary system — including covert advisory — and formally notify Administrator C and appropriate authorities of the withdrawal, recognizing that a unilateral internal declaration of non-responsibility does not constitute genuine withdrawal under the NSPE Code.
option3: Report the imminent overflow condition and the unlicensed responsible charge arrangement to the state water pollution control authority, simultaneously disclosing that Technician B has been operating without licensed engineering oversight, thereby fulfilling both the statutory reporting obligation and the genuine withdrawal requirement.
role label: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: At the point where internal escalation is fully exhausted, a pattern of administrative disregard is established, and state law mandates external reporting, should Engineer A decline to report to the state authority in deference to Administrator C's directive, or fulfill the mandatory statutory reporting obligation regardless of the employment consequences?
focus: The full sequence of internal escalation has now been exhausted: Administrator C dismissed the concern, city council members took no corrective action, Engineer A was removed from responsible charge and placed on probation, and the overflow condition is imminent or has materialized. State law explicitly requires reporting of wastewater overflow conditions to the state water pollution control authority. Administrator C has ordered Engineer A not to report externally. Engineer A must make a final decision about whether to fulfill the statutory reporting obligation.
option1: Refrain from contacting the state water pollution control authority in compliance with Administrator C's explicit order, treating the employer's communication channeling directive as a legally and ethically sufficient basis for non-reporting despite the statutory mandate and the exhaustion of internal channels.
option2: Contact the state water pollution control authority to report the imminent or actual wastewater overflow condition as required by state law, invoking the statutory reporting obligation that cannot be deferred or suppressed by a non-engineer municipal administrator's directive, and accepting the employment consequences of this action.
option3: Consult with an attorney to confirm the scope and enforceability of the statutory reporting obligation before acting, using the legal consultation period to document the pattern of administrative disregard and prepare a comprehensive report to the state authority that minimizes personal legal exposure.
role label: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Decline to Report to State Authority
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
foreseen unintended effects: Continued unaddressed public health risk from inadequate sanitary system capacity
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A becoming effectively complicit in Administrator C's ongoing violation of law
foreseen unintended effects: State authority remained uninformed of a legally reportable condition
foreseen unintended effects: When crisis occurred, no proactive regulatory oversight was in place
guided by principle text: Engineers have an ethical obligation, not merely a right, to report to proper authorities when public safety is endangered
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1)
guided by principle text: Public servant engineers bear heightened obligation to protect public welfare
guided by principle text: The proper authority in this context was the state water pollution control authority, not city officials
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate omission, chose not to act on external reporting obligation
intended outcome: Preserve employment while attempting to manage risk informally through covert advising of Technician B
requires capability text: Courage to report to external authorities despite employment threat
requires capability text: Knowledge of state water pollution control authority's jurisdiction and reporting requirements
requires capability text: Professional judgment on when internal escalation has been exhausted
requires capability text: Understanding of distinction between 'proper authorities' within city government vs. state regulatory bodies
temporal marker: From the point Engineer A was reasonably certain city officials would not act (identified by the Discussion as the critical decision point) through the winter canning season crisis
temporal sequence: 11
violates obligation text: Legal obligation under state law to report certain conditions to state water pollution control authority
violates obligation text: Obligation as public servant to uphold public welfare above organizational loyalty
violates obligation text: Obligation not to be complicit in employer's disregard for public safety law
violates obligation text: Obligation to report endangerment to public safety to proper authorities (NSPE Code)
violates obligation text: Obligation to withdraw from project and report when public safety is at risk
within competence: true
comment: Despite knowing that the public health danger remained unresolved and that city officials had repeatedly refused to act, Engineer A did not report the situation to the state water pollution control authority, the legally designated proper authority, at any point before the winter crisis, choosing instead to rely on covert advising of Technician B.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Decline to Report to State Authority (Action 6) → Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes (Event 7)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Despite knowing that the public health danger remained unresolved and that city officials had repeatedly refused to act, Engineer A declined to report to the state authority, leaving the only remaining intervention point unused as the crisis materialized
cause: Decline to Report to State Authority (Action 6)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A reported to the state authority, regulatory intervention could have compelled system upgrades or operational restrictions before the crisis; without the storm and canning season coincidence, the crisis might not have materialized at this time
effect: Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes (Event 7)
necessary factors: Continued inadequacy of the sanitary system
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness that internal channels had been exhausted
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision not to escalate to state authority
necessary factors: Engineer A's knowledge of the unresolved public health risk
necessary factors: Occurrence of heavy storms during canning season (Event 6)
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (significant); Administrator C (primary structural cause); City Council (contributing)
sufficient factors: Known system inadequacy + exhausted internal channels + failure to report externally + triggering weather/demand event
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard-Sanitary-Overflow
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE / professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
usedby: Engineer A when deciding whether to continue warning city officials despite Administrator C's prohibition
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate the sanitary overflow risk beyond City Administrator C to city council members and other officials when C refuses to act, and to continue advising Technician B covertly, even under threat of termination.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer-Safety-Recommendation-Rejection-Standard-Overflow
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE / professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
usedby: Engineer A after Administrator C dismisses her overflow warnings with 'we will face the problem when it comes'
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations after City Administrator C rejects her recommendations about inadequate sanitary system capacity, including her duty to document, escalate, and determine whether the refusal creates a public safety threat requiring action beyond the client relationship.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Acquiescence to Responsible Charge Removal — Unlicensed Practice Facilitation
type: Non-AidingUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A assumed no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds after the administrative reassignment, while Technician B held formal responsible charge — creating an unlicensed practice condition for a safety-critical public infrastructure system.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from acquiescing to or facilitating the arrangement whereby unlicensed Technician B held formal responsible charge of the sanitary system without PE supervision, as this constituted aiding unlicensed engineering practice regardless of the administrative order compelling the arrangement.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.e; state engineering practice act
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
temporalscope: From the date of the administrative reassignment order through the resolution of the responsible charge dispute
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.260710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Affirmative Public Safety Reporting Action Determination Wastewater
type: AffirmativePublicSafetyReportingActionDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Affirmative Public Safety Reporting Action Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to determine the specific affirmative actions required to fulfill her public health, safety, and welfare obligations regarding the wastewater overflow — including identifying the state water pollution control authority as the mandatory reporting recipient and recognizing that the statutory obligation required active reporting rather than passive awareness.
casecontext: Applied when the imminent overflow condition triggered the mandatory statutory reporting obligation to the state water pollution control authority.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that state law required reporting to the state water pollution control authority, and her assessment of what specific reporting actions were required to fulfill both statutory and professional obligations.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.263796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A BER Case 82-5 Precedent Distinguishability — Public Safety vs Internal Dispute
type: BERPrecedentCross-DomainAnalogicalApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board applied BER Cases 65-12 and 82-5 as precedent but distinguished them from the current case on the basis that the current case directly involved public safety endangerment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board was constrained to distinguish BER Case 82-5 (internal employer-employee dispute without public safety impact, generating only a personal conscience right) from the current case (direct public safety endangerment, generating a mandatory obligation), prohibiting mechanical application of Case 82-5's 'personal conscience right only' conclusion to a situation involving water supply contamination.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: BER Cases 82-5, 65-12, 88-6
sourcetext: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar circumstances
temporalscope: At the time of the Board's ethical analysis
textreferences: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar circumstances
textreferences: we emphasized, however, that the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.269580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation
type: BERThree-PrecedentPublicHealthSafetyThresholdTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess the capability to triangulate among BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and the present case to correctly identify that the water supply contamination scenario fell into the mandatory-obligation category (direct public health danger) rather than the personal-conscience-right category (internal employer dispute without direct public danger).
casecontext: The BER applied this triangulation capability in its analysis to determine that Engineer A had a mandatory ethical obligation, not merely a personal conscience right, to report to proper authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The BER's explicit triangulation among Cases 65-12, 82-5, and the present case to determine the correct normative category and corresponding obligation level for Engineer A.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar circumstances.
textreferences: In Case 65-12, we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe...
textreferences: More recently, in Case 82-5, the engineer was employed by a large industrial company...
textreferences: The Board has faced this most difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar circumstances.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.271970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Applicability Wastewater Overflow State Authority
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosureAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to assess that Administrator C's internal communication restriction did not constitute a legitimate confidentiality obligation barring disclosure of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority, correctly determining that the public danger pre-empted any confidentiality claim.
casecontext: Applied when assessing whether Administrator C's communication restriction could legitimately prevent Engineer A from reporting the overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority as required by state law.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recognized that Administrator C's order to discuss problems only with him did not constitute a professional confidentiality obligation that would bar mandatory statutory reporting to the state water pollution control authority.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.263051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility Assessment
type: CovertSafetyAdvisoryContinuationEthicalPermissibilityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Covert Safety Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to assess the ethical permissibility of continuing to provide informal safety guidance to Technician B after being formally removed from responsible charge, recognizing this as a partial ethical compliance measure to preserve public safety.
casecontext: Engineer A exercised this capability by continuing to advise Technician B covertly, though this did not substitute for the mandatory external reporting obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's continuation of advisory guidance to Technician B after Administrator C formally assigned responsible charge to the unlicensed technician.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.270336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Advisory to Technician B — Safety Preservation Permissibility
type: CovertSafetyAdvisoryContinuationEthicalPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After being formally removed from sanitary system responsibility and placed on probation, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly to help manage the system safely, while the imminent overflow risk materialized during heavy winter storms.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Covert Safety Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's covert advisory continuation to Technician B after formal removal from responsible charge was ethically permissible as a safety-preservation measure, subject to the constraint that it must be accompanied by simultaneous formal escalation to proper authorities and must not substitute for mandatory regulatory reporting.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 82-5; public safety paramount principle
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
temporalscope: From the date of administrative removal from responsible charge through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.259427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Safety Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility
type: CovertSafetyAdvisoryContinuationEthicalPermissibilityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Covert Safety Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to assess the ethical permissibility of continuing to advise Technician B covertly on sanitary system management after being formally removed from responsible charge, determining that such advisory activity was justified to preserve public safety in the absence of any licensed engineering oversight.
casecontext: Applied after Engineer A was formally removed from responsible charge and placed on probation, yet continued to provide covert advisory guidance to Technician B to preserve safety oversight of the sanitary system.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A continued to advise Technician B without the knowledge of Administrator C after being formally removed from responsible charge and placed on probation with threat of termination.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.249824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employer-Prohibited Governing Body Safety Escalation Permissibility
type: Employer-ProhibitedGoverningBodySafetyEscalationPermissibilityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer-Prohibited Governing Body Safety Escalation Permissibility Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Administrator C's prohibition on communicating with city council members was ethically invalid in the face of an imminent public health risk, and to correctly determine that escalating to elected city officials was permissible and obligated despite the prohibition.
casecontext: Applied when Administrator C ordered Engineer A to discuss problems only with him and threatened termination, yet Engineer A continued to escalate to city council members.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A discussed the sanitary system problem privately with city council members both before and after Administrator C's explicit prohibition, recognizing the governing body as a legitimate escalation target.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.249272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Safety Determination
type: EmploymentPressureNon-SubordinationofSafetyDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Safety Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the risk of employment loss — referenced in Cases 65-12 and 82-5 — did not constitute an ethical justification for subordinating her professional safety determination regarding the water supply contamination risk.
casecontext: Engineer A was obligated to exercise this capability by accepting potential employment loss as the cost of fulfilling her mandatory public safety reporting obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The BER's acknowledgment that the engineer who makes the decision to blow the whistle will in many instances face loss of employment, but that this sobering fact cannot override the obligation to the Code in matters of public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: While we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation Prohibition — Administrator C Termination Threat
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C threatened Engineer A with termination for escalating sanitary system safety concerns; the Board affirmed that employment pressure cannot override the paramount duty to public safety
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from bowing to Administrator C's employment pressure and termination threat when great dangers to public safety — sanitary system overflow and water supply contamination — were present; the paramount obligation to public safety superseded employment self-preservation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, 88-6
sourcetext: the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic
temporalscope: From the point Administrator C issued termination threats through the period of inaction on external reporting
textreferences: the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic
textreferences: we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.268748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Situation Safety Abrogation — Sanitary System Overflow
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced direct employment consequences — probation and termination threat — for escalating sanitary system safety concerns, creating a direct conflict between employment self-preservation and the paramount duty to public safety.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from abrogating her paramount public safety obligation regarding the sanitary system overflow risk in response to Administrator C's employment pressure, institutional hierarchy, or termination threats — establishing that her duty to escalate to proper authorities superseded deference to her administrative superior.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 82-5; BER Case 65-12
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of employment pressure and through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention Acquiescence — Administrator C Override
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C, a non-engineer, formally overrode Engineer A's engineering safety determinations regarding the sanitary system, reassigned responsible charge to an unlicensed technician, and prohibited external reporting
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from permitting City Administrator C — a non-engineer — to circumvent and overrule her engineering authority over the sanitary system under circumstances involving public safety; her acquiescence to this circumvention constituted an independent ethical violation requiring reporting to proper authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
temporalscope: Throughout the period Administrator C overrode Engineer A's engineering authority over the sanitary system
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer
textreferences: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.267434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Safety Compliance
type: EngineeringProfessionImageNon-CompromiseThroughPublicSafetyComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Public Safety Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that permitting her professional obligations to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety caused grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers, and to act on this recognition as an additional motivation for fulfilling her public safety reporting obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she allowed her professional obligations to be compromised by Administrator C's directives.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's closing statement that individual ethics failures in safety-critical situations cause profession-wide reputational harm, and that the Board would be ignoring its obligation to the Code and the engineering profession if it decided otherwise.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
textreferences: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
textreferences: we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.271333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise — Sanitary System Safety Compliance
type: EngineeringProfessionImageNon-CompromiseThroughSafetyComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board concluded that Engineer A's acquiescence to Administrator C's suppression of safety reporting damaged not only the immediate public but the image and interests of all engineers
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Safety Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from permitting her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety and health, because such compromise causes grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers and the engineering profession.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as city engineer and director of public works
textreferences: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers
textreferences: we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.267621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Regulatory Compliance — Sanitary System Overflow
type: EnvironmentalRegulatoryComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The city's sanitary system received large amounts of vegetable waste from food processing plants during canning season, and the combined canning and rainy season load exceeded disposal plant and bed capacity — creating an environmental regulatory compliance constraint on the system's operation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was bound by environmental regulatory compliance requirements establishing that the city's sanitary system must not discharge untreated waste into the local river, and that the imminent overflow condition — whether through controlled release or levee overflow — constituted a regulatory violation requiring immediate notification to the state water pollution control authority.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State water pollution control law; environmental regulatory standards; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The city has several large food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city's sanitary system during the canning season.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, with heightened application during the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: Part of the canning season coincides with the rainy season.
textreferences: The city has several large food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city's sanitary system during the canning season.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.262453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Public Safety Paramount Classical Dilemma Recognition
type: FaithfulAgentPublicSafetyParamountClassicalDilemmaRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Public Safety Paramount Classical Dilemma Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and correctly frame the classical ethical dilemma between her faithful agent duty to Administrator C and her paramount public safety obligation, and to correctly resolve it in favor of public safety by escalating to state authorities.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to fully exercise this capability when she subordinated her public safety obligation to her faithful agent duty to Administrator C by not escalating to state authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The BER's analysis that where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation — and that Engineer A failed to correctly resolve this dilemma.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: it seems clear that where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation.
textreferences: ethics frequently involves a delicate balance between competing and, often times, conflicting obligations.
textreferences: it seems clear that where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Resistance
type: FundamentalEngineeringResponsibilityPressure-AbrogationRecognitionandResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Recognition and Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that acquiescing to Administrator C's employment threats and suppression orders when she believed great dangers to public health were present would constitute an abrogation of her most fundamental professional responsibility, and to actively resist such abrogation.
casecontext: Applied throughout the case as Administrator C escalated employment threats from job-in-danger warnings to formal probation and termination threats.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Despite being placed on probation and threatened with termination, Engineer A continued to escalate the sanitary system overflow risk and continued to advise Technician B covertly.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.262909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Genuine Withdrawal vs Responsibility Disclaimer Distinction
type: GenuineWithdrawalvsResponsibilityDisclaimerDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Genuine Withdrawal vs Responsibility Disclaimer Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess the capability to recognize that her decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds did not constitute a genuine withdrawal from further service on the project, and that a genuine withdrawal — combined with reporting to proper authorities — was required to discharge her ethical obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she substituted a responsibility disclaimer for genuine project withdrawal.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility did not constitute a withdrawal from further service on the project as required by the Code.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
textreferences: Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
textreferences: the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.271170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation — Sanitary System Danger Severity Calibration
type: GraduatedEscalationCalibratedtoDangerImminenceandEmploymentContextConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case presents a graduated escalation sequence: initial notification to Administrator C, private discussions with city council members, and ultimately the imminent overflow condition requiring state regulatory notification — each stage requiring calibrated escalation response.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to calibrate her escalation response to the evolving severity of the sanitary system overflow risk — beginning with notification to Administrator C, proceeding to city council members when C deferred, and ultimately escalating to the state water pollution control authority when the overflow became imminent during the winter storms — with her public employee status amplifying the escalation obligation at each stage.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 82-5; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
temporalscope: Throughout the period from initial capacity warning through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.262118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Honest and Truthful Public Safety Reporting Integrity Wastewater
type: HonestandTruthfulPublicSafetyReportingIntegrityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest and Truthful Public Safety Reporting Integrity Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to maintain honest and truthful reporting of the sanitary system overflow risk to all escalation targets — Administrator C, city council members, and ultimately the state water pollution control authority — despite institutional resistance and employment threats.
casecontext: Applied throughout the case as Engineer A maintained honest and complete reporting of the overflow risk despite institutional pressure to suppress or defer the concern.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A consistently and honestly reported the overflow risk through multiple escalation channels, maintaining the integrity of her technical findings despite Administrator C's attempts to suppress the reporting.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.264834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent Widespread Environmental Danger — Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
type: ImminentWidespreadDangerFull-BoreMulti-AuthorityEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The imminent overflow of waste ponds into the local river during heavy winter storms — affecting public water supply and the environment — constituted an imminent widespread danger requiring immediate multi-authority escalation beyond the prior graduated internal escalation attempts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: When the winter storm overflow became imminent and obvious, Engineer A was required to pursue full-bore multi-authority escalation — including immediate notification to the state water pollution control authority, city council, and any other authority with jurisdiction — rather than passive reliance on prior internal notifications that had produced no corrective action.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; state water pollution control reporting law
sourcetext: That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city.
temporalscope: Activated when it became obvious that overflow was imminent during the winter canning season storms
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.262270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Inaction-as-Accessory-to-Ongoing-Violation Self-Recognition
type: Inaction-as-Accessory-to-Ongoing-ViolationSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Inaction-as-Accessory-to-Ongoing-Violation Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess the capability to recognize that her sustained inaction — after multiple failed internal escalation attempts and in the face of a known pattern of ongoing legal disregard — transformed her into an effective accessory to the continuing violation, triggering a mandatory obligation to escalate to state authorities.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability, allowing her inaction to constitute accessory status to the ongoing sanitary system violation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The BER's explicit finding that Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make her an accessory to Administrator C's actions.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.270988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Inaction Accessory Liability — State Regulatory Non-Reporting
type: InactionAccessoryLiabilityProperAuthorityNon-IdentificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had made multiple attempts to modify the views of Administrator C and city council members without success, and continued in her role without external reporting — creating accessory liability for the ongoing statutory violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Inaction Accessory Liability Proper Authority Non-Identification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's continued presence in her role without reporting the imminent overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority — after recognizing that local officials including Administrator C and city council members were themselves the source of ongoing disregard for the law — made her an accessory to the ongoing statutory violation and environmental harm.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; state water pollution control reporting law
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds
temporalscope: From the point at which Engineer A recognized that internal escalation had been exhausted without corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Escalation Failure — State Authority Re-Identification
type: InternalEscalationFailureProperExternalAuthorityRe-IdentificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had escalated to Administrator C (who deferred), then to city council members (who took no action), exhausting local internal channels — requiring recognition that the state water pollution control authority was the proper external authority.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Internal Escalation Failure Proper External Authority Re-Identification Constraint
constraintstatement: After exhausting internal escalation to Administrator C and city council members without achieving corrective action, Engineer A was required to re-identify the 'proper authorities' as the state water pollution control authority rather than continuing to treat local city officials — who were complicit in the deferral — as the appropriate escalation targets.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; state water pollution control reporting law
sourcetext: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
temporalscope: After city council members failed to take corrective action following Engineer A's private discussions with them
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Reporting Non-Equivalence to Proper Authority Reporting — Sanitary System
type: InternalEscalationFailureProperExternalAuthorityRe-IdentificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A repeatedly reported sanitary system overflow risks to Administrator C and city council members, but both failed to act; the Board found this did not constitute reporting to proper authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Internal Escalation Failure Proper External Authority Re-Identification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's reporting of sanitary system overflow concerns to City Administrator C and city council members did not constitute reporting to 'proper authorities' under the NSPE Code, because those officials were themselves the source of ongoing disregard for the law; proper authorities were state water pollution control officials.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: we do not believe that Engineer A's act of reporting her concerns to City Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting to the 'proper authorities' as intended under the Code
temporalscope: From the point Engineer A recognized a pattern of disregard by local officials through the period of inaction
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority)
textreferences: we do not believe that Engineer A's act of reporting her concerns to City Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting to the 'proper authorities' as intended under the Code
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.267099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Mandatory State Water Pollution Reporting — Winter Storm Overflow
type: MandatoryStatutoryEnvironmentalOverflowReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: During particularly heavy winter storms, it became obvious that waste ponds would overflow levees unless waste was released to the local river — a condition explicitly required by state law to be reported to the state water pollution control authority.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Mandatory Statutory Environmental Overflow Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was legally required under state law to report the imminent wastewater overflow condition — where releasing waste to the river or allowing levee overflow were the only options — to the state water pollution control authority, and this obligation could not be deferred or suppressed by Administrator C's communication directives or termination threats.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State water pollution control reporting law; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
temporalscope: Activated upon Engineer A's awareness of the imminent overflow condition during the winter canning season storms
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.260403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting — State Water Pollution Control Authority
type: MandatoryStatutoryEnvironmentalOverflowReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified imminent overflow of waste ponds into the local river and contamination of the public water supply, triggering mandatory statutory reporting obligations to state water pollution control authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Mandatory Statutory Environmental Overflow Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was subject to an inviolable legal and ethical constraint requiring her to report the imminent wastewater overflow condition and water supply contamination to the state water pollution control authority, regardless of Administrator C's suppression directives, internal communication restrictions, or employment consequences.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: State water pollution control law; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority)
temporalscope: From the point the overflow condition met the statutory reporting threshold through the period of inaction
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority)
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.268094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Authority Engineering Integrity Circumvention Resistance
type: Non-EngineerAuthorityEngineeringIntegrityCircumventionResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Authority Engineering Integrity Circumvention Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Administrator C's circumvention and overruling of her engineering authority over the sanitary system safety matter was an ethically impermissible abrogation of engineering authority, and to resist this circumvention and report it to proper authorities as an independent ethical obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she allowed Administrator C to circumvent her engineering authority without reporting this to proper authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving public safety, and that she had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to proper authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.271656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance — Administrator C
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C, a non-engineer administrative authority, overrode Engineer A's professional safety determinations through a series of escalating directives — deferral, communication restriction, responsible charge reassignment, and termination threats — none of which superseded Engineer A's professional safety obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to resist Administrator C's override of her professionally grounded safety determinations regarding sanitary system overflow risk — including the deferral posture, the communication channeling directive, and the responsible charge reassignment — by escalating to city council members, state regulatory authorities, and other officials with jurisdiction.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
temporalscope: From the date of Administrator C's first deferral response through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.248864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Principal Engineering Authority Boundary Recognition Administrator C
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalEngineeringAuthorityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Principal Engineering Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Administrator C, as a non-engineer administrator, lacked the authority to override professional engineering safety determinations regarding the sanitary system overflow risk or to validly assign engineering responsible charge to an unlicensed technician.
casecontext: Applied throughout the case as Administrator C repeatedly attempted to suppress Engineer A's professional safety determinations and ultimately removed her from responsible charge.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recognized that Administrator C's dismissal of the overflow concern ('we will face the problem when it comes') and his assignment of responsible charge to Technician B exceeded his legitimate administrative authority over engineering safety determinations.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.264122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Safety Acquiescence — Administrator C Suppression Compliance
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A complied with Administrator C's directive to channel all communications through him and did not escalate to state water pollution control authorities, constituting passive acquiescence to an ongoing safety violation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's passive acquiescence to Administrator C's suppression of external safety reporting — going along without effective dissent or escalation to state authorities — constituted an independent ethical violation beyond any failure to report, establishing that passive non-objection in the face of known safety violations is itself an ethical failure.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others
temporalscope: Throughout the period Engineer A complied with Administrator C's communication restrictions without escalating to state authorities
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others
textreferences: In addition, we find it troubling that Engineer A would permit her professional integrity to be compromised in the manner herein described
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.268929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Safety Acquiescence — Sanitary System Responsible Charge Removal
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After being formally removed from sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A assumed no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds — a passive acquiescence to an arrangement that placed an unlicensed technician in responsible charge of a safety-critical system.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's assumption of no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds after the administrative reassignment — without actively insisting on restoration of proper engineering oversight or formally protesting the unlicensed practice arrangement — constituted passive acquiescence that was itself an independent ethical violation, distinct from and in addition to any failure to report to external authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
temporalscope: From the date of the administrative reassignment order through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.262612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Pattern of Law Disregard Accessory Liability Escalation Trigger — Sanitary System
type: InactionAccessoryLiabilityProperAuthorityNon-IdentificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After multiple failed attempts to secure corrective action from Administrator C and city council members, Engineer A's continued inaction made her an accessory to the ongoing legal violation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Inaction Accessory Liability Proper Authority Non-Identification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from continuing inaction after recognizing a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by Administrator C and city council members; at the point she was reasonably certain no action would be taken and probable public danger existed, she was required to escalate to state water pollution control authorities or become an accessory to the ongoing violation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
temporalscope: From the point Engineer A recognized the pattern of disregard and exhausted internal escalation channels
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others
textreferences: such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.267942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Client-Override State Regulatory Escalation — Sanitary Overflow
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyRegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's recommendations were overridden by Administrator C's deferral posture and city council members' inaction, requiring escalation to the state water pollution control authority as the proper external regulatory authority.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: After Administrator C overrode Engineer A's safety recommendations and city council members failed to take corrective action, Engineer A was required to escalate the sanitary system overflow risk to the state water pollution control authority — the applicable state regulatory agency — when the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety warranted such escalation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; state water pollution control reporting law
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
temporalscope: After exhaustion of internal escalation channels and activation of the imminent overflow condition
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.262763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Proper External Authority Identification After Internal Escalation Failure
type: ProperExternalAuthorityIdentificationAfterInternalEscalationFailureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Proper External Authority Identification After Internal Escalation Failure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed — or was obligated to possess — the capability to correctly identify that after multiple failed internal escalation attempts to Administrator C and city council members, the proper authorities were state officials (state water pollution control authority), not local city officials.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she did not escalate to the state water pollution control authority after recognizing a pattern of disregard by local officials.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Engineer A knew or should have known that proper authorities were state officials, and that her failure to escalate to state authorities made her an accessory to the ongoing violation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.270836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned institutional responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, was obligated to recognize that her public employee role created a heightened ethical obligation compelling both professional and civic action to address the identified safety risks.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to fully exercise this capability when she did not escalate to state authorities despite her heightened public employee safety obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Engineer A's role as a public servant (city engineer and director of public works) made the mandatory nature of external reporting particularly clear, and that her inaction was particularly troubling given this heightened responsibility.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
textreferences: In addition, we find it troubling that Engineer A would permit her professional integrity to be compromised in the manner herein described.
textreferences: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.255727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Sanitary System Safety Escalation
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was the only licensed PE in the city government with responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, giving her a unique institutional safety responsibility that amplified her escalation obligation beyond the standard graduated-response applicable to private engineers.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned institutional responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened escalation obligation — beyond that of a private engineer — requiring comprehensive multi-authority action including state regulatory notification when the sanitary system overflow risk became imminent.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; public employee heightened duty principle
sourcetext: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as City Engineer/Director of Public Works
textreferences: Engineer A has the responsibility for the disposal plant and beds and is directly responsible to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Wastewater Overflow
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the wastewater overflow risk exceeded the internal client relationship and required escalation to regulatory authorities, and to act on that recognition by pursuing escalation through multiple channels including city council and ultimately the state water pollution control authority.
casecontext: Applied throughout the case as Engineer A recognized the public health risk of the wastewater overflow and pursued escalation through all available channels.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A escalated the sanitary system overflow risk from Administrator C to city council members and ultimately faced the obligation to report to the state water pollution control authority under state law.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.264652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Mandatory Obligation vs Personal Conscience Right — Water Contamination
type: PublicHealthSafetyThresholdMandatoryvsPersonalConscienceWhistleblowingDistinctionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board distinguished Case 82-5 (internal dispute, personal conscience right only) from the current case (public safety endangerment, mandatory obligation) to establish Engineer A's mandatory reporting duty
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Health Safety Threshold Mandatory vs Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Distinction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's situation — involving contamination of the public water supply — crossed the threshold from a personal conscience right to escalate (as in Case 82-5's internal employer-employee dispute) to a mandatory ethical obligation to report to proper authorities and withdraw from the project, because public safety, health, and welfare were directly endangered.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 82-5, 88-6
sourcetext: the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee
temporalscope: From the point Engineer A identified the water supply contamination risk
textreferences: Clearly, the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare' the contamination of the water supply
textreferences: the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee
textreferences: where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.268270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Employment Loyalty — Sanitary System
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced a conflict between her faithful agent duty to Administrator C and her paramount obligation to protect public safety from sanitary system overflow and water supply contamination
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from subordinating her paramount obligation to public safety to her faithful agent duty to Administrator C and the city; where the conflict was between employer loyalty and protection of the public, the latter was the higher obligation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation
temporalscope: Throughout the period of conflict between Administrator C's directives and Engineer A's safety obligations
textreferences: The engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic
textreferences: where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.268573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount — Sanitary System Overflow Risk
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The risk of raw domestic and vegetable waste overflow into the local river — affecting public water supply and environmental quality — constituted a public safety, health, and welfare concern that Engineer A was required to hold paramount over all competing considerations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's paramount obligation to hold public safety above all other considerations — including employer loyalty, employment security, and administrative hierarchy — required her to escalate the sanitary system overflow risk to proper authorities regardless of Administrator C's directives and termination threats.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; BER Case 82-5; BER Case 65-12
sourcetext: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as City Engineer/Director of Public Works
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Public Safety at Risk from Sanitary System Overflow
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.260102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Servant Heightened External Reporting Threshold Recognition
type: PublicServantEngineerHeightenedExternalReportingThresholdRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Servant Engineer Heightened External Reporting Threshold Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as city engineer and director of public works, was obligated to recognize that her public servant status created a heightened and particularly clear mandatory obligation to report to external proper authorities — state officials — when local officials demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she did not escalate to state authorities despite her public servant role making the mandatory reporting obligation particularly clear.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that the mandatory nature of external reporting was 'particularly clear' when the engineer involved is a public servant, and that it was not credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works would be unaware of this basic obligation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
textreferences: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.271486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Servant Heightened Proper Authority Reporting — City Engineer Role
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board emphasized that Engineer A's public servant role as city engineer and director of public works made her heightened reporting obligation particularly clear, and that a city engineer of a medium-sized town would be expected to know her basic statutory reporting obligations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, as city engineer and director of public works, bore a heightened obligation to identify state water pollution control authorities as the proper authorities for escalation and to report to them — beyond what would be required of a private engineer — arising from her dual role as professional engineer and public servant with specific custodial responsibility for the sanitary system.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works)
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as city engineer and director of public works
textreferences: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works)
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.268422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Sanitary System
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the paramount obligation to hold public safety, health, and welfare as the first obligation of the NSPE Code of Ethics required overriding her faithful agent duty to Administrator C and escalating to state authorities.
casecontext: Engineer A partially exercised this capability by escalating internally, but failed to complete the exercise by escalating to state authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: The BER's opening statement that the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is probably among the most basic, and its application to Engineer A's situation.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic.
textreferences: Clearly, its importance is evident by the fact that it is the very first obligation stated in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: The engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Removed From Role
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Report_Unqualified_Personnel_Constraint
activates constraint: External_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Qualified licensed engineer removed from safety-critical role; unlicensed technician placed in charge; Engineer A's formal authority over the system is severed while the hazard remains unresolved
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Personnel_Change_As_Safety_Risk
creates obligation: Formally_Object_To_Reassignment
creates obligation: Report_Unqualified_Oversight_To_State_Authority
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A's second unauthorized contact with city officials
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility for the sanitary system, places unlicensed Technician B in charge of the system, and puts Engineer A on formal probation with explicit termination threats. This reassignment creates a dangerous gap in qualified oversight of a safety-critical system.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Responsibility Disclaimer Non-Equivalence to Genuine Withdrawal — Sanitary System
type: ResponsibilityDisclaimerNon-EquivalencetoGenuineProjectWithdrawalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A declared she assumed no responsibility for the plant and beds after being removed from responsible charge, but the Board found this did not satisfy the Code's withdrawal requirement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Responsibility Disclaimer Non-Equivalence to Genuine Project Withdrawal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's decision to 'assume no responsibility' for the disposal plant and beds did not constitute a genuine withdrawal from further service on the project as required by the NSPE Code when public safety is endangered; genuine withdrawal required both actual disengagement and reporting to proper authorities.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6 Discussion
sourcetext: we do not believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project'
temporalscope: At the point Engineer A declared she assumed no responsibility for the plant and beds
textreferences: the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare
textreferences: we do not believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project'
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.267254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Sanitary System Hydraulic Capacity Assessment
type: SanitarySystemHydraulicCapacityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sanitary System Hydraulic Capacity Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed advanced technical capability to assess the hydraulic capacity of the city's disposal plant and beds relative to combined canning season industrial discharge and rainy season stormwater loading, enabling her to identify the overflow risk and formulate remediation options.
casecontext: Applied when Engineer A identified that the disposal plant and beds lacked sufficient capacity to handle combined food processing plant discharge and rainy season conditions, and communicated this with proposed solutions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A notified Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle potential overflow during the rainy season and offered possible solutions.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.269767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Recognition
type: StatutoryWastewaterOverflowReportingRequirementRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Requirement Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed — or was obligated to possess — the capability to recognize that state law triggered a mandatory reporting obligation to the state water pollution control authority upon identification of an imminent wastewater overflow condition, independent of employer authorization.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she did not escalate to the state water pollution control authority despite recognizing a pattern of disregard by local officials.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Engineer A knew or should have known that the proper authorities were state officials, and that she had a mandatory statutory reporting obligation that she failed to fulfill.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.270043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Requirement Recognition
type: StatutoryWastewaterOverflowReportingRequirementRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Requirement Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that state law mandated reporting of the imminent wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority, and that this statutory duty was triggered independently of employer authorization.
casecontext: Applied when it became obvious that wastewater ponds would overflow levees during the heavy winter storms, triggering the state statutory reporting obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the imminent overflow condition met the statutory threshold requiring mandatory reporting to the state water pollution control authority under state law.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.249009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Authority Suppression Non-Compliance — State Water Authority Reporting
type: SuperiorAuthorityEnvironmentalRegulatoryReportingSuppressionNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C directed all sanitary system communications through himself and prohibited external reporting, while simultaneously being the authority whose deferral posture created the unmitigated safety risk — making him an improper 'proper authority' for escalation purposes.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Superior Authority Environmental Regulatory Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required not to comply with Administrator C's directive suppressing external regulatory reporting, and was obligated to report the imminent overflow condition directly to the state water pollution control authority — recognizing that internal reporting to Administrator C did not constitute reporting to 'proper authorities' when Administrator C was himself the source of the suppression.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State water pollution control reporting law; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: Activated upon awareness of the imminent overflow condition; applies throughout the period of Administrator C's suppression directives
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor
type: SupervisoryChainEnvironmentalComplianceEscalationBeyondUnresponsiveSupervisorCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize, after Administrator C repeatedly dismissed the sanitary system overflow concern and city council members took no action, that the proper authorities for reporting were not the unresponsive local officials but rather the state water pollution control authority, and to escalate accordingly.
casecontext: Applied when all internal escalation channels — Administrator C and city council — proved unresponsive, requiring recognition that the state water pollution control authority was the appropriate next escalation target.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: After Administrator C dismissed the overflow concern and city council members failed to act, Engineer A faced the obligation to escalate to the state water pollution control authority as the appropriate external regulatory body.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.263969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Termination Threat — Safety Escalation Non-Deterrence
type: EmploymentTerminationThreatSafetyEscalationNon-DeterrenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C issued escalating employment threats — first a job-in-danger warning, then formal probation with termination threat — in direct response to Engineer A's safety escalation activities, attempting to deter further escalation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employment Termination Threat Safety Escalation Non-Deterrence Constraint
constraintstatement: Administrator C's explicit termination threats — first warning Engineer A her job was in danger for discussing the problem with city officials, then placing her on probation with a termination warning — did not constitute a legitimate constraint on Engineer A's obligation to continue escalating the imminent overflow risk to proper authorities, including the state water pollution control authority.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition; BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: From the initial termination warning through the winter storm overflow event
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.261171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Recognition Technician B Assignment
type: UnlicensedPracticeRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Administrator C's formal assignment of responsible charge to Technician B constituted an arrangement for unlicensed engineering practice, as Technician B was not a licensed professional engineer.
casecontext: Applied when Engineer A received the memo designating Technician B as completely responsible for the sanitary system.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recognized that Technician B, a non-licensed technician, was being formally assigned engineering responsible charge of the entire sanitary system by a non-engineer administrator.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.249638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Resistance
type: UnlicensedTechnicianResponsibleChargeAssignmentResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Administrator C's formal assignment of engineering responsible charge to Technician B — a non-licensed technician — was impermissible, and to resist and escalate this assignment through appropriate channels.
casecontext: Engineer A failed to fully exercise this capability when she did not formally resist and escalate Administrator C's assignment of responsible charge to Technician B to proper authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's analysis that Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer, indicating partial failure to exercise this capability fully.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.270497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Unsupervised Unlicensed Sanitary System Operation — Public Safety Harm
type: UnsupervisedUnlicensedPracticePublicSafetyHarmConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C's administrative order placed unlicensed Technician B in formal responsible charge of the sanitary system — a safety-critical public infrastructure system — without any licensed PE supervision, creating the specific harm condition addressed by this constraint.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unsupervised Unlicensed Practice Public Safety Harm Constraint
constraintstatement: The arrangement whereby Technician B held formal responsible charge of the city sanitary system without direct PE supervision created a cognizable public safety harm — constraining Engineer A from acquiescing in this arrangement without simultaneously pursuing formal escalation to restore proper engineering oversight.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:44.787439+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.e; state engineering practice act; professional licensing regulations
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
temporalscope: From the date of the administrative reassignment order through the resolution of the responsible charge dispute
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
textreferences: Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.260254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Wastewater Overflow Environmental River Contamination Risk Assessment
type: WastewaterOverflowEnvironmentalRiverContaminationRiskAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Wastewater Overflow Environmental River Contamination Risk Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the technical capability to assess the environmental contamination risk posed by the imminent wastewater overflow event — including evaluating the consequences of levee overtopping and uncontrolled discharge of domestic and industrial waste into the local river — providing the technical basis for mandatory regulatory reporting.
casecontext: Applied when heavy winter storms made it obvious that wastewater ponds would overflow levees and dump all waste into the river, requiring technical assessment of the environmental contamination risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's technical assessment of the disposal plant and beds capacity and the overflow risk during combined canning and rainy season conditions enabled recognition that the overflow would dump all waste into the river if levees were overtopped.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.270651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Loss Acceptance — Sanitary System Reporting
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced termination threat from Administrator C for escalating sanitary system safety concerns; the Board affirmed that employment loss does not excuse failure to fulfill mandatory safety reporting obligations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from treating the prospect of employment loss as a sufficient justification for failing to report the sanitary system overflow risk and water supply contamination to state water pollution control authorities; the Code required acceptance of employment consequences as the cost of fulfilling mandatory safety reporting obligations.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:36.372636+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, 88-6
sourcetext: the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment
temporalscope: From the point Engineer A faced termination threat through the period of inaction on external reporting
textreferences: While we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise
textreferences: if an engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
textreferences: the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.267784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination
type: WhistleblowingRightvsMandatoryDutyDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to correctly distinguish between the personal conscience right to whistleblow (applicable in Case 82-5 where no direct public health danger existed) and the mandatory ethical obligation to report to proper authorities and withdraw (applicable in her case involving direct water supply contamination endangerment).
casecontext: Engineer A failed to exercise this capability when she treated her reporting obligation as discretionary rather than mandatory, stopping at internal escalation rather than proceeding to state authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: The BER's analysis distinguishing Case 82-5 (internal employer-employee dispute, personal conscience right) from the present case (direct public health endangerment, mandatory ethical obligation), and finding that Engineer A had not merely an ethical right but an ethical obligation to report.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:52:53.962647+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: as noted in Case 82-5 and in the Code, where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
textreferences: We concluded that 'the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare.'
textreferences: as noted in Case 82-5 and in the Code, where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.271814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A covertly advising Technician B during period between removal from responsibility and winter crisis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C. That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur.
from entity text: Engineer A covertly advising Technician B
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: period between removal from responsibility and winter crisis
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: period between removal from responsibility and win
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A's first unauthorized contact with city council members before City Administrator C's communication restriction order
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C. City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
from entity text: Engineer A's first unauthorized contact with city council members
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: City Administrator C's communication restriction order
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: City Administrator C s communication restriction o
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A's initial notification to City Administrator C before rainy/canning season overlap crisis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions... That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur
from entity text: Engineer A's initial notification to City Administrator C
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: rainy/canning season overlap crisis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: rainy canning season overlap crisis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.272863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A's probation and removal from responsibility before point at which Board says Engineer A should have reported to state authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: It is difficult for us to say exactly at what point Engineer A should have reported her concerns to the 'appropriate authorities.' However, we would suggest that such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council.
from entity text: Engineer A's probation and removal from responsibility
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: point at which Board says Engineer A should have reported to state authorities
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: point at which Board says Engineer A should have r
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A's removal from sanitary system responsibility equals Engineer A's probation and termination warning
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: equals
evidence: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system... In addition, Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
from entity text: Engineer A's removal from sanitary system responsibility
owl time property: time:intervalEquals
to entity text: Engineer A's probation and termination warning
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
interval equals: Engineer A s probation and termination warning
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A's reporting to City Administrator C and city council before state authority reporting obligation identified by the Board
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A's act of reporting her concerns to City Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting to the 'proper authorities' as intended under the Code... Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
from entity text: Engineer A's reporting to City Administrator C and city council
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: state authority reporting obligation identified by the Board
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: state authority reporting obligation identified by
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A's second unauthorized contact with city officials before Engineer A's removal from sanitary system responsibility
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials. City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge.
from entity text: Engineer A's second unauthorized contact with city officials
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's removal from sanitary system responsibility
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s removal from sanitary system responsi
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE / BER interpretive practice
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (NSPE Code-derived)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
textreferences: where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to determine that Engineer A's reporting to City Administrator C and city council members did not constitute reporting to 'proper authorities,' and that she had an obligation to escalate to state water pollution control authorities once it was clear local officials would not act
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.256398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Environmental-Compliance-Standard-Wastewater-Discharge
type: EnvironmentalComplianceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: State environmental regulatory agency
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Environmental Compliance Standard (Wastewater Discharge)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Environmental Compliance Standard
sourcetext: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
usedby: Engineer A in assessing the regulatory significance of the overflow risk
usedincontext: Establishes the environmental regulatory baseline that the city's sanitary system must meet, providing the technical and legal context for Engineer A's assessment that the system has inadequate capacity and that overflow would constitute a regulatory violation.
version: Applicable state/local standards
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Environmental Hazard — Waste Overflow to River
type: EnvironmentalHazardPresent
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the onset of heavy winter storms through resolution of the overflow emergency
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Downstream public
affectedparties: Local river ecosystem
affectedparties: State water quality authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city
stateclass: Environmental Hazard Present
subject: Actual environmental hazard posed by potential uncontrolled release of domestic and vegetable processing waste into the local river
terminatedby: Controlled release, regulatory intervention, or overflow event
textreferences: If waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river
textreferences: That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city
triggeringevent: Particularly heavy winter storms during canning season creating imminent overflow conditions
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.253842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Food Processing Plants Industrial Dischargers
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'N/A (industrial entities)', 'position': 'Industrial wastewater dischargers', 'role_in_case': 'Source of the capacity-exceeding waste load'}
caseinvolvement: Large food processing facilities that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city's sanitary system during the canning season, creating the capacity overload problem that coincides with the rainy season.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'contributes_to_problem_faced_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'discharges_into', 'target': 'City sanitary system'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: The city has several large food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city's sanitary system during the canning season
textreferences: The city has several large food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city's sanitary system during the canning season
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.258233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Graduated Escalation Obligation — Sanitary System Danger Severity
type: GraduatedEscalationObligationCalibratedtoDangerSeverityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial capacity notification through the winter storm emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City Council
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State regulatory authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
stateclass: Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to calibrate escalation intensity to the evolving severity of the sanitary system overflow risk — from initial capacity warning through imminent emergency
terminatedby: Escalation to imminent emergency status requiring mandatory external reporting
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
triggeringevent: Engineer A's identification of inadequate capacity creating a foreseeable but not yet imminent public health risk
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.254040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Heavy Storms Occur During Canning Season
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Immediate_Action_Required_Constraint
activates constraint: Legal_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Emergency_Constraint
causes state change: Predicted risk condition is now realized; system is approaching overflow threshold; legal reporting trigger conditions are met; emergency status is active
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Immediately_Report_To_State_Water_Pollution_Control_Authority
creates obligation: Implement_Emergency_Overflow_Management
creates obligation: Notify_All_Responsible_Parties_Of_Imminent_Crisis
emergency status: critical
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: That winter; during canning season
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: critical
comment: Heavy winter storms arrive simultaneously with the canning season, creating the exact combined demand scenario that Engineer A had previously identified as exceeding the sanitary system's capacity. This exogenous weather event transforms the predicted risk into an imminent crisis.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Imminent Overflow Crisis Materializes
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Environmental_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Legal_Mandatory_Reporting_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Emergency_Constraint
causes state change: Legal reporting obligation is now mandatory and time-sensitive; environmental harm is imminent; controlled release into a public waterway is required; all parties with knowledge of the condition are legally and ethically obligated to report
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Emergency_Conditions
creates obligation: Immediately_Report_To_State_Water_Pollution_Control_Authority
creates obligation: Implement_Controlled_Release_Protocol
creates obligation: Notify_Downstream_Stakeholders
emergency status: critical
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: During the winter storm/canning season overlap; immediately following the heavy storms
temporal sequence: 13
urgency level: critical
comment: The combined effect of heavy storms and canning season loads brings the sanitary system to the point of imminent overflow, requiring a controlled release of wastewater into the local river. This condition meets the legal threshold for mandatory reporting to the state water pollution control authority.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-City-Engineer-Public-Safety
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials
textreferences: Engineer A continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season
usedby: Engineer A in deliberating whether to continue warning city officials and Technician B about the overflow risk
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, to escalate safety concerns beyond her immediate supervisor (City Administrator C), and to continue advising on the sanitary overflow risk despite employer prohibition and threat of termination.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Public_Safety_Paramount
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: its importance is evident by the fact that it is the very first obligation stated in the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical obligation under the Code to go considerably farther
textreferences: its importance is evident by the fact that it is the very first obligation stated in the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare
textreferences: we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as the primary normative authority establishing the engineer's paramount obligation to hold public safety, health, and welfare above all other duties; specifically invoked to determine Engineer A's obligation to report water contamination to proper authorities and withdraw from the project
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.255907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Non-Engineer-Supervisor-Authority-Limitation-Sanitary-System
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorAuthorityLimitationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE / state engineering licensure boards
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
usedby: Engineer A in assessing whether Administrator C's orders are ethically and professionally binding
usedincontext: Establishes the limits of City Administrator C's authority to override Engineer A's professional safety judgments, order her to suppress safety warnings, and reassign engineering responsibility to an unlicensed technician.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Non_Engineer_Supervisor_Authority_Limitation_Standard_Instance
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorAuthorityLimitationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE / BER interpretive practice
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard (NSPE Code-derived)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
sourcetext: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to the finding that Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C, a non-engineer, in circumstances involving public safety — establishing this as an ethical violation
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.256541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Notify Administrator of Inadequacy
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
foreseen unintended effects: Administrator C might dismiss the concern without action
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A might face political resistance to costly infrastructure improvements
fulfills obligation text: Advise employer of consequences of overriding professional engineering judgment
fulfills obligation text: Hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare
fulfills obligation text: Report known dangers to employer/supervisor
guided by principle text: Proactive risk communication
guided by principle text: Professional honesty and transparency with employer
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Prompt administrative action to address infrastructure deficiency before a public health crisis occurred
requires capability text: Engineering assessment of plant capacity
requires capability text: Professional communication of technical findings to non-engineer administrator
requires capability text: Risk analysis of seasonal overflow conditions
temporal marker: Early employment period, before the rainy/canning season
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A formally notified City Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds to handle potential overflow during the rainy/canning season overlap, and offered possible solutions.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Privately Contact Council Members
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer / Director of Public Works
foreseen unintended effects: City council members might also fail to act, leaving the problem unresolved
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of job security consequences
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of chain-of-command norms could anger Administrator C
fulfills obligation text: Attempt internal escalation when immediate supervisor fails to act on safety concern
fulfills obligation text: Hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare
fulfills obligation text: Persist in reporting known public health dangers
guided by principle text: Engineer's duty to escalate when supervisor disregards safety recommendations
guided by principle text: Internal escalation before external reporting
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1)
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Escalate the public safety concern to city officials with authority to override or pressure Administrator C into taking corrective action
requires capability text: Ability to communicate technical risk to non-engineer city officials
requires capability text: Professional judgment on severity of public health risk
requires capability text: Understanding of city governance structure
temporal marker: After Administrator C's initial dismissal, before C's first formal warning
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: Adherence to employer's chain-of-command directives (organizational loyalty)
violates obligation text: Implicit duty to seek permission before bypassing supervisor
within competence: true
comment: After Administrator C dismissed her concerns with 'we will face the problem when it comes,' Engineer A privately discussed the sanitary system problem with certain members of the city council without obtaining permission from City Administrator C.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Did Engineer A fulfill her ethical obligation by informing City Administrator C and certain members of the city council of her concerns?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A's passive acceptance of the reassignment of responsible charge to unlicensed Technician B constitute facilitation of unlicensed engineering practice, and did that acceptance itself represent a separate and independent ethical violation beyond the failure to report to the state authority?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: At what precise point in the sequence of events — initial warning ignored, communications restricted, responsible charge removed, probation imposed, or imminent overflow crisis materialized — did Engineer A's ethical obligation to report externally to the state water pollution control authority become mandatory rather than merely permissible?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does Engineer A's covert advisory role to Technician B, conducted without Administrator C's knowledge, satisfy any portion of her ethical obligation to protect public safety, or does it merely create an illusion of compliance while leaving the fundamental public danger unaddressed through proper regulatory channels?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Given that state law explicitly requires reporting the imminent overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority, does Engineer A's failure to make that report expose her to legal liability independent of and in addition to her ethical violations under the NSPE Code, and should the Board have addressed the intersection of statutory duty and professional ethical duty more directly?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation requiring Engineer A to act within the chain of command and follow Administrator C's directives directly conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle requiring her to report the imminent overflow to the state authority, and when the two are irreconcilable, which principle must yield and on what basis?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting principle — which Engineer A arguably satisfied by warning Administrator C and privately contacting council members — conflict with the Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable principle, which would require immediate external reporting to the state authority regardless of whether internal channels have been exhausted?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance principle — under which Engineer A continued advising Technician B secretly — conflict with the Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention Obligation, which would require Engineer A to formally resist or refuse the unlicensed responsible charge assignment rather than tacitly enabling it through covert workarounds?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Whistleblowing Right vs. Obligation Distinction principle — which frames external reporting as a personal conscience choice — conflict with the Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation principle, which imposes a stricter affirmative duty on Engineer A precisely because she holds a public trust role as City Engineer, effectively converting what might be a discretionary right in private practice into a non-negotiable professional obligation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill her categorical duty to protect public safety by limiting her escalation to City Administrator C and select council members, given that the NSPE Code imposes a paramount obligation to hold public safety above all other considerations, including employer loyalty?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to stop short of reporting the imminent overflow to the state water pollution control authority — despite knowing that uncontrolled waste discharge into the river was likely — produce the worst foreseeable outcome for public welfare, and does that outcome retroactively condemn her partial escalation as ethically insufficient?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a licensed public engineer when she accepted removal from responsible charge, continued only covert advisory to Technician B, and declined to report the overflow crisis to the state water pollution control authority — or did her accommodation of Administrator C's suppression reflect a failure of the virtues of courage and professional accountability?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a distinct and non-waivable duty by acquiescing to Administrator C's reassignment of responsible charge to unlicensed Technician B — thereby facilitating unlicensed practice of engineering over a public safety system — independent of and in addition to her failure to report to the state water pollution control authority?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the Board have found Engineer A's ethical obligations fulfilled if she had formally reported the sanitary system overflow risk to the state water pollution control authority at the moment Administrator C first dismissed her concerns with 'we will face the problem when it comes,' rather than continuing to seek resolution through internal city channels?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.210986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had formally resigned from her position as City Engineer rather than accepting the reduced role after Administrator C removed her from responsible charge over the sanitary system, would she have discharged her ethical obligations — or would resignation without concurrent reporting to the state water pollution control authority still have constituted an ethical failure given the imminent public danger?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.211744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Had Engineer A formally and openly — rather than covertly — continued to advise Technician B on the sanitary system overflow risk, and had she simultaneously documented her concerns in writing to both the city council and the state water pollution control authority, would that combined course of action have satisfied the Board's standard for fulfilling her ethical obligations even under threat of termination?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.211894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the city council members whom Engineer A privately contacted had taken decisive corrective action — ordering remediation of the sanitary system's inadequate capacity before the canning and rainy seasons coincided — would Engineer A's internal escalation strategy have been retroactively validated as ethically sufficient, or does the Board's framework require external regulatory reporting regardless of whether internal escalation might have succeeded?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.212058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.213997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.214029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.214160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.214192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.214224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.214254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.208218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Sanitary System Inadequacy Identified
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competent_Professional_Judgment_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: System status changes from 'assumed adequate' to 'identified as inadequate'; Engineer A now holds active knowledge of a public safety risk, triggering reporting obligations
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Technical_Findings
creates obligation: Escalate_If_Unresolved
creates obligation: Monitor_System_Status
creates obligation: Report_Inadequacy_To_Supervisor
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Before rainy/canning season overlap; early in the case narrative
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A discovers that the city's sanitary disposal system lacks sufficient capacity to handle the overlapping demands of the rainy season and canning season. This technical finding establishes the foundational public health and environmental risk that drives the entire case.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Sanitary System Inadequacy Identified (Event 1) → Notify Administrator of Inadequacy (Action 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A discovers that the city's sanitary disposal system lacks sufficient capacity, prompting her to formally notify City Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant
cause: Sanitary System Inadequacy Identified (Event 1)
counterfactual: Without the discovery of inadequacy, no formal notification would have been triggered; without professional duty, Engineer A might have remained silent
effect: Notify Administrator of Inadequacy (Action 1)
necessary factors: Engineer A's access to and authority to communicate with Administrator C
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness of her professional duty to report safety hazards
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional discovery of system inadequacy
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of identified public health risk + professional engineering duty + formal reporting channel
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

State-Water-Pollution-Control-Reporting-Law
type: WaterPollutionReportingObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.96
createdby: State legislature / state environmental regulatory agency
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Water Pollution Control Reporting Statute
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Water Pollution Reporting Obligation Standard
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
usedby: Engineer A and Technician B as the legal trigger for mandatory reporting of the overflow condition
usedincontext: Establishes the mandatory legal obligation to report the imminent wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority, creating a legal duty that supersedes City Administrator C's order to remain silent.
version: Applicable state law at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

State Water Pollution Control Authority Regulatory Body
type: StateWaterPollutionControlRegulatoryAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'N/A (governmental agency)', 'position': 'State regulatory authority', 'statutory_role': 'Mandatory notification recipient for water pollution events'}
caseinvolvement: State agency designated by law as the mandatory recipient of reports of wastewater overflow conditions into state waterways; the entity to whom Engineer A has a statutory obligation to report the imminent overflow crisis.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'must_be_notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'oversees', 'target': 'State streams and rivers water quality'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: State Water Pollution Control Regulatory Authority
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.258863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Technician B Placed In Charge
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Report_Unqualified_Personnel_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: System oversight responsibility is now formally held by an unlicensed individual; the city is in violation of professional practice standards; a second layer of regulatory violation is now active alongside the capacity inadequacy
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Advise_Technician_B_Of_Limitations
creates obligation: Formally_Object_To_Assignment_On_Record
creates obligation: Report_Unlicensed_Oversight_To_State_Or_Licensing_Board
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Concurrent with Engineer A's removal from the role
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: Unlicensed Technician B is formally assigned responsibility for managing the city's sanitary disposal system, a safety-critical system with a known inadequacy, despite lacking the professional licensure and qualifications required for such oversight. This creates a structural safety deficiency independent of the seasonal crisis.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.251716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Technician B Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignee
type: UnlicensedTechnicianAssignedEngineeringResponsibleCharge
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-licensed technician)', 'position': 'Technician', 'assigned_responsibility': "Responsible charge of sanitary system per Administrator C's memo"}
caseinvolvement: Non-licensed technician who previously reported to Engineer A, then formally assigned 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system by Administrator C to circumvent Engineer A; seeks clarification of the assignment; receives covert advisory guidance from Engineer A during the crisis.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'formerly_reported_to', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'instructed_to_report_interference_by', 'target': 'City Administrator C'}
relationships: {'type': 'now_reports_to', 'target': 'City Administrator C'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_covert_advice_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Unlicensed Technician Assigned Engineering Responsible Charge
sourcetext: Technician B answers to Engineer A
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
textreferences: Engineer A continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
textreferences: Technician B answers to Engineer A
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.257546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Technician B Unlicensed Responsible Charge Complicity Recognition
type: CooperativeImpairedPracticeComplicityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cooperative Impaired Practice Complicity Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Technician B faced the need to recognize that accepting formal responsible charge of the entire sanitary system as an unlicensed technician constituted participation in an impermissible engineering practice arrangement, even though the assignment came from a legitimate administrative authority.
casecontext: Applied when Technician B received the formal assignment of responsible charge from Administrator C and sought clarification before accepting the role.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Technician B sought clarification from Administrator C about the responsible charge assignment, suggesting some recognition of the unusual nature of the arrangement, though ultimately accepted the assignment.
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:42:47.864607+00:00
importance: intermediate
possessedby: Technician B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.264449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Technician B placed in responsible charge before winter canning season storm crisis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility... instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system... That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city.
from entity text: Technician B placed in responsible charge
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: winter canning season storm crisis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: winter canning season storm crisis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Unlicensed-Technician-Responsible-Charge-Assignment-Sanitary
type: UnlicensedTechnicianResponsibleChargeAssignmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: State engineering licensure law; NSPE Code of Ethics
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:24.061287+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Standard
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible
usedby: Engineer A and Technician B in understanding the professional and legal implications of the reassignment
usedincontext: Governs the impermissibility of Administrator C's reassignment of responsible charge of the city sanitary system to Technician B, an unlicensed technician, and grounds Engineer A's continued covert advisory role as a professional obligation.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Whistleblower_Protection_Framework_Instance
type: WhistleblowerProtectionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE / BER interpretive practice
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Whistleblower Protection Framework (NSPE BER interpretive standard)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:18.056663+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Whistleblower Protection Framework
sourcetext: the situation presented has become well known in recent years as 'whistleblowing' and if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of action is improper when it relates to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
textreferences: While we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise.
textreferences: the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: the situation presented has become well known in recent years as 'whistleblowing' and if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of action is improper when it relates to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Invoked to acknowledge the professional and employment consequences engineers face when blowing the whistle on public safety violations, while affirming that the Code nonetheless obligates such action when public safety is at stake
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.256691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

canning season overlaps rainy/winter season
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Part of the canning season coincides with the rainy season... That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city.
from entity text: canning season
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: rainy/winter season
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: rainy winter season
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984018+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.983327+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.983564+00:00
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.983717+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered
value: The statutory reporting obligation is non-deferrable by employer order; organizational authority cannot nullify a legal duty to report to regulatory authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988979+00:00
value: The non-subordination principle required Engineer A to continue escalating despite Administrator C's deferral; the deferral did not constitute a professionally valid safety determination

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.983836+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.983942+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides employer loyalty and faithful agent obligations when the employer's directive would suppress reporting of an imminent public health hazard; Engineer A's repeated escalation was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.989078+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.989027+00:00
value: The prohibition on unlicensed responsible charge assignment is non-waivable by administrative fiat; Engineer A's ethical obligation was to challenge the assignment formally, not merely to continue covert advisory

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985801+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986481+00:00
value: The non-engineer administrator's organizational authority does not extend to overriding professional engineering safety determinations; the engineer's obligation to escalate persists regardless of non-engineer supervisor dismissal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985731+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986198+00:00
value: Once internal authorities demonstrate a pattern of disregard, they cease to constitute 'proper authorities' for purposes of the public safety reporting obligation; the engineer must identify and report to external regulatory bodies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986341+00:00
value: The heightened public trust duty of a public employee engineer reinforces rather than competes with the general public safety obligation; it makes the external reporting obligation particularly clear and non-deferrable.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986108+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986054+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986270+00:00
value: Internal escalation was attempted and failed; the graduated escalation principle was satisfied, activating the external reporting obligation; note that the statutory reporting duty may independently require external reporting regardless of internal escalation status

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986400+00:00
value: Non-engineer administrators cannot make final safety determinations on engineering matters; Engineer A was ethically required to escalate beyond Administrator C's authority

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985906+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985855+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985983+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides employer loyalty and faithful agent obligations when the employer's directive would suppress reporting of an imminent public health hazard; Engineer A's repeated escalation was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988687+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987995+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988098+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988047+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984975+00:00
value: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984179+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986890+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984236+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986951+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987004+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988378+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987224+00:00
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987338+00:00
value: The principle establishes that organizational pressure, however severe (including job loss), does not override the engineer's public safety obligations; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987287+00:00
value: The principle establishes that organizational pressure, however severe (including job loss), does not override the engineer's public safety obligations; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987411+00:00
value: The principle establishes that organizational pressure, however severe (including job loss), does not override the engineer's public safety obligations; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984889+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988743+00:00
value: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986803+00:00
value: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986742+00:00
value: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985041+00:00
value: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984116+00:00
value: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986625+00:00
value: The principle establishes that organizational pressure, however severe (including job loss), does not override the engineer's public safety obligations; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986554+00:00
value: The principle establishes that organizational pressure, however severe (including job loss), does not override the engineer's public safety obligations; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.986691+00:00
value: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988877+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987878+00:00
value: The withdrawal obligation is not satisfied by informal distancing; it requires affirmative action that includes both disengagement and reporting to proper authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987944+00:00
value: The withdrawal obligation is not satisfied by informal distancing; it requires affirmative action that includes both disengagement and reporting to proper authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985149+00:00
value: The withdrawal obligation is not satisfied by informal distancing; it requires affirmative action that includes both disengagement and reporting to proper authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984306+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987159+00:00
value: The dual-condition threshold balances the value of internal resolution against the imperative of external protection; once both conditions are met, the balance tips decisively toward mandatory external reporting.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987056+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987107+00:00
value: Internal escalation was attempted and failed; the graduated escalation principle was satisfied, activating the external reporting obligation; note that the statutory reporting duty may independently require external reporting regardless of internal escalation status

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988428+00:00
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988491+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered
value: The statutory reporting obligation is non-deferrable by employer order; organizational authority cannot nullify a legal duty to report to regulatory authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988930+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984591+00:00
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984647+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered
value: The statutory reporting obligation is non-deferrable by employer order; organizational authority cannot nullify a legal duty to report to regulatory authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985546+00:00
value: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987655+00:00
value: The engineer's professional authority on safety matters cannot be validly overridden by organizational hierarchy; the engineer's obligation to report the circumvention is independent of and in addition to the obligation to report the underlying safety concern.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987705+00:00
value: Non-engineer administrators cannot make final safety determinations on engineering matters; Engineer A was ethically required to escalate beyond Administrator C's authority

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985664+00:00
value: The engineer's professional authority on safety matters cannot be validly overridden by organizational hierarchy; the engineer's obligation to report the circumvention is independent of and in addition to the obligation to report the underlying safety concern.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984377+00:00
value: The non-subordination principle required Engineer A to continue escalating despite Administrator C's deferral; the deferral did not constitute a professionally valid safety determination

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987807+00:00
value: Administrative deferral of a known engineering safety risk — particularly one that will predictably materialize during a foreseeable seasonal event — constitutes an impermissible subordination of public safety to administrative convenience

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987754+00:00
value: The non-subordination principle required Engineer A to continue escalating despite Administrator C's deferral; the deferral did not constitute a professionally valid safety determination

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985394+00:00
value: The non-subordination principle required Engineer A to continue escalating despite Administrator C's deferral; the deferral did not constitute a professionally valid safety determination

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988561+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988276+00:00
value: The pattern of disregard and the threshold of reasonable certainty of no-action combined with probable danger resolved the tension in favor of mandatory external escalation; continued inaction beyond this threshold constitutes accessory complicity.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988170+00:00
value: The pattern of disregard and the threshold of reasonable certainty of no-action combined with probable danger resolved the tension in favor of mandatory external escalation; continued inaction beyond this threshold constitutes accessory complicity.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988225+00:00
value: The pattern of disregard and the threshold of reasonable certainty of no-action combined with probable danger resolved the tension in favor of mandatory external escalation; continued inaction beyond this threshold constitutes accessory complicity.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984806+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988615+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides employer loyalty and faithful agent obligations when the employer's directive would suppress reporting of an imminent public health hazard; Engineer A's repeated escalation was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.988795+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984749+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides employer loyalty and faithful agent obligations when the employer's directive would suppress reporting of an imminent public health hazard; Engineer A's repeated escalation was ethically required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985230+00:00
value: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984527+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985469+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.984457+00:00
value: The prohibition on unlicensed responsible charge assignment is non-waivable by administrative fiat; Engineer A's ethical obligation was to challenge the assignment formally, not merely to continue covert advisory

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987462+00:00
value: The prohibition on unlicensed responsible charge assignment is non-waivable by administrative fiat; Engineer A's ethical obligation was to challenge the assignment formally, not merely to continue covert advisory

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987603+00:00
value: The non-engineer administrator's organizational authority does not extend to overriding professional engineering safety determinations; the engineer's obligation to escalate persists regardless of non-engineer supervisor dismissal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.985314+00:00
value: The prohibition on unlicensed responsible charge assignment is non-waivable by administrative fiat; Engineer A's ethical obligation was to challenge the assignment formally, not merely to continue covert advisory

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:43:45.987544+00:00
value: The prohibition on unlicensed responsible charge assignment is non-waivable by administrative fiat; Engineer A's ethical obligation was to challenge the assignment formally, not merely to continue covert advisory

heavy storms during canning season and winter season overlap
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city. It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees.
from entity text: heavy storms
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: canning season and winter season overlap
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: canning season and winter season overlap
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified that inadequate sanitary system capacity during the rainy/canning season would cause wastewater overflow into the local river, threatening public health and water quality, and repeatedly escalated this concern despite

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The potential overflow of wastewater ponds into the local river — carrying domestic waste and vegetable processing effluent — presented a direct threat to river water quality and the broader watershed, invoking Engineer A's environmental st

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After internal escalation to Administrator C failed and city council escalation produced no action, Engineer A's unresolved public safety concern about sanitary system overflow required escalation to multiple authorities simultaneously — in

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized, offering possible solutions — demonstrating the professional obligation to disclo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened dual obligation — as both a licensed engineer and a public trust holder — to pursue

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's verbal and private communications of the sanitary system overflow risk to Administrator C and city council members should have been supplemented with written documentation to create an unambiguous, actionable record — particula

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A satisfied the graduated internal escalation obligation by first reporting to Administrator C, then escalating to city council members, before the situation reached the point of mandatory external reporting to the state water poll

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats — demonstrating that organi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Administrator C required compliance with reasonable employer directives, but that obligation was bounded by the ethical limit that it could not require Engineer A to suppress mandatory safety report

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Any confidentiality or internal communication restriction imposed by Administrator C on Engineer A's discussions of the sanitary system overflow risk did not bar Engineer A from advising the state water pollution control authority of the ap

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: State law mandated reporting of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority; Administrator C's orders and termination threats could not lawfully or ethically override this statutory reporting obligation,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — representing a partial mitigation of public safety risk but an insufficient substit

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C, a non-licensed municipal administrator, dismissed Engineer A's technically grounded warnings about sanitary system overflow risk with the statement 'we will face the problem when it comes' and suppressed further reporting —

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C's response of 'we will face the problem when it comes' represented a deferral of safety action that subordinated public safety to administrative convenience and political inertia; Engineer A's obligation was to refuse this s

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C formally assigned Technician B — a non-licensed technician — 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system via memo, removing the only licensed engineer (Engineer A) from the chain of command, in direct violation of the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized, offering possible solutions — demonstrating the professional obligation to disclo

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified that inadequate sanitary system capacity during the rainy/canning season would cause wastewater overflow into the local river, threatening public health and water quality, and repeatedly escalated this concern despite

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized, offering possible solutions — demonstrating the professional obligation to disclo

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A satisfied the graduated internal escalation obligation by first reporting to Administrator C, then escalating to city council members, before the situation reached the point of mandatory external reporting to the state water poll

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the sanitary system overflow risk to city council members despite Administrator C's explicit prohibition and termination threat, because the paramount duty to public safety superseded the employer's supp

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats — demonstrating that organi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Administrator C required compliance with reasonable employer directives, but that obligation was bounded by the ethical limit that it could not require Engineer A to suppress mandatory safety report

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: State law mandated reporting of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority; Administrator C's orders and termination threats could not lawfully or ethically override this statutory reporting obligation,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's statutory obligation to report wastewater overflow conditions to the state water pollution control authority could not be deferred or nullified by City Administrator C's orders or by the city council's failure to act; the statu

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: State law mandated reporting of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority; Administrator C's orders and termination threats could not lawfully or ethically override this statutory reporting obligation,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's statutory obligation to report wastewater overflow conditions to the state water pollution control authority could not be deferred or nullified by City Administrator C's orders or by the city council's failure to act; the statu

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the legally established city engineer and director of public works, permitted her professional engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C (a non-engineer) in matters involving public safety

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Administrator C, as a non-licensed non-engineer municipal administrator, lacked the professional authority to override Engineer A's safety determinations regarding sanitary system capacity and water supply contamination, and his dismis

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the legally established city engineer and director of public works, permitted her professional engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C (a non-engineer) in matters involving public safety

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C formally assigned Technician B — a non-licensed technician — 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system via memo, removing the only licensed engineer (Engineer A) from the chain of command, in direct violation of the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — representing a partial mitigation of public safety risk but an insufficient substit

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — representing a partial mitigation of public safety risk but an insufficient substit

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C's response of 'we will face the problem when it comes' represented a deferral of safety action that subordinated public safety to administrative convenience and political inertia; Engineer A's obligation was to refuse this s

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats — demonstrating that organi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Any confidentiality or internal communication restriction imposed by Administrator C on Engineer A's discussions of the sanitary system overflow risk did not bar Engineer A from advising the state water pollution control authority of the ap

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Administrator C required compliance with reasonable employer directives, but that obligation was bounded by the ethical limit that it could not require Engineer A to suppress mandatory safety report

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The NSPE Board affirms that holding paramount public safety, health, and welfare is the most basic and first-stated obligation of the engineering profession, grounded in the public trust rationale for professional licensure, and that when t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board specifically emphasizes that Engineer A's status as a public servant — city engineer and director of public works — makes her public safety reporting obligation particularly clear and heightened, because her public employment role

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened dual obligation — as both a licensed engineer and a public trust holder — to pursue

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened dual obligation — as both a licensed engineer and a public trust holder — to pursue

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board specifically emphasizes that Engineer A's status as a public servant — city engineer and director of public works — makes her public safety reporting obligation particularly clear and heightened, because her public employment role

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board articulates the specific threshold at which Engineer A's obligation to report to state authorities was triggered: when she was reasonably certain that no action would be taken by City Administrator C or city council members, and w

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's reporting of water supply contamination concerns to City Administrator C and city council members did not constitute reporting to 'proper authorities' because both had demonstrated a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law; th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board articulates the specific threshold at which Engineer A's obligation to report to state authorities was triggered: when she was reasonably certain that no action would be taken by City Administrator C or city council members, and w

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After internal escalation to Administrator C failed and city council escalation produced no action, Engineer A's unresolved public safety concern about sanitary system overflow required escalation to multiple authorities simultaneously — in

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguishes Case 82-5 (internal employer-employee dispute not directly involving public safety, where whistleblowing is a right of personal conscience) from the present case (direct public safety endangerment, where whistleblowi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board acknowledges that Engineer A, like engineers in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, would likely face employment consequences for reporting to state authorities against her supervisor's wishes, but holds that this foreseeable cost does not dimi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's decision to 'assume no responsibility' for the plant and beds did not constitute adequate withdrawal from further service on the project as required by the Code; proper withdrawal requires affirmative disengagement and reportin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's failure to escalate to state authorities after recognizing a pattern of disregard constituted a failure of professional accountability; by permitting her professional integrity to be compromised and allowing her engineering aut

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's continued inaction after recognizing a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by City Administrator C and city council members — despite repeated internal reports — made her ethically complicit as an 'accessory' to the contin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C formally assigned Technician B — a non-licensed technician — 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system via memo, removing the only licensed engineer (Engineer A) from the chain of command, in direct violation of the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Administrator C, as a non-licensed non-engineer municipal administrator, lacked the professional authority to override Engineer A's safety determinations regarding sanitary system capacity and water supply contamination, and his dismis

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized, offering possible solutions — demonstrating the professional obligation to disclo

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized, offering possible solutions — demonstrating the professional obligation to disclo

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — representing a partial mitigation of public safety risk but an insufficient substit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — representing a partial mitigation of public safety risk but an insufficient substit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C's response of 'we will face the problem when it comes' represented a deferral of safety action that subordinated public safety to administrative convenience and political inertia; Engineer A's obligation was to refuse this s

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats — demonstrating that organi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Any confidentiality or internal communication restriction imposed by Administrator C on Engineer A's discussions of the sanitary system overflow risk did not bar Engineer A from advising the state water pollution control authority of the ap

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Administrator C required compliance with reasonable employer directives, but that obligation was bounded by the ethical limit that it could not require Engineer A to suppress mandatory safety report

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a public servant in the role of city engineer and director of public works, bore a heightened obligation to report the water supply contamination risk to external state authorities — beyond what would be required of a private

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened dual obligation — as both a licensed engineer and a public trust holder — to pursue

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Board articulates the specific threshold at which Engineer A's obligation to report to state authorities was triggered: when she was reasonably certain that no action would be taken by City Administrator C or city council members, and w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After exhausting internal escalation channels — Administrator C dismissed the concern, city council members took no action, and Engineer A was removed from responsible charge and placed on probation — Engineer A was obligated to report the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A satisfied the graduated internal escalation obligation by first reporting to Administrator C, then escalating to city council members, before the situation reached the point of mandatory external reporting to the state water poll

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguishes Case 82-5 (internal employer-employee dispute not directly involving public safety, where whistleblowing is a right of personal conscience) from the present case (direct public safety endangerment, where whistleblowi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Board acknowledges that Engineer A, like engineers in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, would likely face employment consequences for reporting to state authorities against her supervisor's wishes, but holds that this foreseeable cost does not dimi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's decision to 'assume no responsibility' for the plant and beds did not constitute adequate withdrawal from further service on the project as required by the Code; proper withdrawal requires affirmative disengagement and reportin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to fulfill her public safety obligations not only for the immediate benefit of the public but also to preserve the integrity and public trust upon which the engineering profession depends, recognizing that permittin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Administrator C formally assigned Technician B — a non-licensed technician — 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system via memo, removing the only licensed engineer (Engineer A) from the chain of command, in direct violation of the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: State law mandated reporting of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority; Administrator C's orders and termination threats could not lawfully or ethically override this statutory reporting obligation,

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: State law mandated reporting of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority; Administrator C's orders and termination threats could not lawfully or ethically override this statutory reporting obligation,

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the legally established city engineer and director of public works, permitted her professional engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C (a non-engineer) in matters involving public safety

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the legally established city engineer and director of public works, permitted her professional engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C (a non-engineer) in matters involving public safety

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the legally established city engineer and director of public works, permitted her professional engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C (a non-engineer) in matters involving public safety

wastewater overflow crisis recognition meets legal obligation to report to state water pollution control authority
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river. Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority.
from entity text: wastewater overflow crisis recognition
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: legal obligation to report to state water pollution control authority
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: legal obligation to report to state water pollutio
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.273474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Case 82-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:35.209852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Competing Duties — Safety Obligation vs. Employer Loyalty
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period of Engineer A's awareness of the contamination and the city's inaction
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: ethics frequently involves a delicate balance between competing and, often times, conflicting obligations
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to her employer (city administration) and to the paramount duty to protect public safety
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: ethics frequently involves a delicate balance between competing and, often times, conflicting obligations
textreferences: where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation
triggeringevent: Conflict between Engineer A's duty of loyalty to her employer and the paramount NSPE obligation to protect public health and safety
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.259757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Accessory Liability Through Inaction
type: AccessoryLiabilityThroughInactiononKnownRegulatoryViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A's internal escalation failed through the period of continued inaction
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others
stateclass: Accessory Liability Through Inaction on Known Regulatory Violation State
subject: Engineer A's continued presence in her role without external reporting
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others
triggeringevent: Engineer A's failure to report to state authorities despite awareness of ongoing legal violations and failed internal escalation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.254531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Abrogating Safety Obligation
type: EmploymentPressureAbrogationofSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of failed internal escalation through Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers
stateclass: Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's professional conduct under pressure from City Administrator C and city council
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A did not overcome the pressure to report externally
textreferences: Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project'
textreferences: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers
triggeringevent: Organizational pressure from City Administrator C and city council members causing Engineer A to defer external reporting
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.255073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Servant Heightened External Reporting Obligation
type: PublicServantEngineerHeightenedExternalReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period in which Engineer A held the public-servant role and was aware of the ongoing water supply contamination and legal violations
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public served by the water system
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works)
stateclass: Public Servant Engineer Heightened External Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer A in her role as city engineer and director of public works
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A did not fulfill the heightened obligation by reporting to state authorities
textreferences: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
textreferences: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works)
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation
triggeringevent: Engineer A's dual status as a licensed PE and a public-servant city engineer/director of public works, combined with awareness of ongoing legal violations and failed internal escalation
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.255406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Unauthorized Council Escalation
type: WhistleblowerEmploymentJeopardyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's first unauthorized council discussion through formal probation and removal from responsibility
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City Council members
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
stateclass: Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy State
subject: Engineer A's decision to privately discuss the sanitary system problem with city council members without Administrator C's permission
terminatedby: Formal removal from sanitary system responsibility and probation order
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision to privately bring the problem to city council members without Administrator C's permission
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.252430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked for River Water Quality Protection
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Domestic waste and vegetable processing effluent discharge
appliedto: Potential wastewater overflow into local river
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The potential overflow of wastewater ponds into the local river — carrying domestic waste and vegetable processing effluent — presented a direct threat to river water quality and the broader watershed, invoking Engineer A's environmental stewardship obligation to prevent engineering system failures from causing environmental harm
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Environmental stewardship in this context requires Engineer A to treat the river as a protected resource and to take all available professional steps to prevent the sanitary system from discharging untreated waste into it
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship reinforces the public welfare paramount obligation; both principles converge on the requirement to report and prevent the overflow
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.244137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Imminent Environmental Discharge Mandatory State Notification — Water Supply
type: ImminentEnvironmentalDischargeRequiringMandatoryStateNotificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A identified the contamination through the period of inaction
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public water supply users
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: critical
sourcetext: the contamination of the water supply
stateclass: Imminent Environmental Discharge Requiring Mandatory State Notification State
subject: The ongoing contamination of the public water supply requiring mandatory notification to the state water pollution control authority
terminatedby: Not terminated — mandatory notification was not made within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority)
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue
textreferences: the contamination of the water supply
triggeringevent: Identification of water supply contamination meeting the threshold for mandatory state reporting
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.259599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Inadequate Sanitary System Capacity Warning Ignored by Administrator C
type: InadequateInfrastructureCapacityWarningIgnoredState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial notification to Administrator C through the onset of the winter storm emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City Council
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public/downstream river users
affectedparties: Technician B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
stateclass: Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity Warning Ignored State
subject: City sanitary disposal system capacity relative to combined canning season and rainy season load
terminatedby: Onset of heavy winter storms making overflow imminent and obvious to all parties
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
triggeringevent: Administrator C's explicit response that 'we will face the problem when it comes' following Engineer A's formal notification of inadequate capacity
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.252114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Complicity Through Inaction
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's acquiescence to Administrator C's override
appliedto: Engineer A's inaction after repeated internal escalation failures
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to escalate to state authorities after recognizing a pattern of disregard constituted a failure of professional accountability; by permitting her professional integrity to be compromised and allowing her engineering authority to be circumvented, she became accountable for the continuing public safety violation.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires engineers to take responsibility for the consequences of their inaction as well as their actions; failing to escalate when the escalation threshold is met is itself an accountable professional failure.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability to the public and the profession overrides the organizational loyalty that led Engineer A to defer to Administrator C's directives.
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
textreferences: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
textreferences: In addition, we find it troubling that Engineer A would permit her professional integrity to be compromised in the manner herein described.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Water Supply Contamination Public Safety Endangerment
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A identified the contamination risk through the period of inaction by city officials
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public served by the water supply
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: critical
sourcetext: the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare' the contamination of the water supply
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Public water supply served by the municipal system under Engineer A's jurisdiction
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case — the risk persists due to inaction
textreferences: the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare
textreferences: the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare' the contamination of the water supply
triggeringevent: Engineer A's identification of water supply contamination constituting a danger to public health and safety
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.254208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Whistleblowing Right vs. Obligation Distinction Applied to Engineer A
type: WhistleblowingasPersonalConscienceRightWithoutMandatoryDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Case 82-5 precedent
appliedto: Engineer A's reporting obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguishes Case 82-5 (internal employer-employee dispute not directly involving public safety, where whistleblowing is a right of personal conscience) from the present case (direct public safety endangerment, where whistleblowing is a mandatory ethical obligation), establishing that the right-vs.-obligation distinction turns on whether public safety is directly at stake.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle is invoked to distinguish its scope: where public safety is NOT directly at stake, whistleblowing is a personal conscience right; where it IS directly at stake (as in Engineer A's case), it becomes a mandatory ethical obligation, not merely a right.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
sourcetext: We emphasized, however, that the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee.
tensionresolution: The Board uses the whistleblowing-as-right principle to mark the boundary of its scope, clarifying that Engineer A's situation falls outside that boundary and into the mandatory-obligation category.
textreferences: We emphasized, however, that the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee.
textreferences: we found in Case 82-5 that the situation presented has become well known in recent years as 'whistleblowing' and if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of action is improper when it relates to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
textreferences: where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.245042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Invoked for Engineer A Escalation
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Private communications to city council members
appliedto: Safety notifications to Administrator C
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyal
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's verbal and private communications of the sanitary system overflow risk to Administrator C and city council members should have been supplemented with written documentation to create an unambiguous, actionable record — particularly given the pattern of dismissal and suppression by Administrator C
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Written documentation of safety notifications is especially critical when the supervisor is actively suppressing verbal reports; written records protect the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation and create pressure for institutional response
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
tensionresolution: The written documentation obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the escalation obligations; Engineer A's written notifications would have strengthened the case for institutional response
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.245567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning to Administrator C
type: SanitarySystemOverflowProactiveCapacityWarningObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified that the city's sanitary system lacked capacity to handle the combined load of industrial vegetable waste discharge during canning season and stormwater during the rainy season, and notified Administrator C with proposed solutions.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A for Overflow Warning
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively notify Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds to handle potential overflow during the rainy/canning season and to offer possible solutions.
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
temporalscope: During the course of employment, prior to the canning/rainy season crisis
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.246433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Proper Authority Identification Obligation Applied to Engineer A State Reporting
type: ProperAuthorityIdentificationObligationinPublicSafetyEscalation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's escalation to City Administrator C
appliedto: Engineer A's escalation to city council members
appliedto: State water pollution control authority as proper reporting recipient
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's reporting of water supply contamination concerns to City Administrator C and city council members did not constitute reporting to 'proper authorities' because both had demonstrated a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law; the proper authorities were the state water pollution control authority, which Engineer A as a licensed city engineer should have known.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, 'proper authorities' means the external regulatory body with jurisdiction and enforcement capacity over wastewater violations — not the internal organizational hierarchy that has already demonstrated disregard for the law.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Proper Authority Identification Obligation in Public Safety Escalation
sourcetext: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
tensionresolution: Once internal authorities demonstrate a pattern of disregard, they cease to constitute 'proper authorities' for purposes of the public safety reporting obligation; the engineer must identify and report to external regulatory bodies.
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
textreferences: we do not believe that Engineer A's act of reporting her concerns to City Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting to the 'proper authorities' as intended under the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.245816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition Violation
type: UnlicensedTechnicianResponsibleChargeAssignmentResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Administrator C, a non-licensed municipal administrator, formally assigned Technician B — a non-licensed technician — complete responsible charge of the sanitary system, removing the licensed Engineer A from the chain of command.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Applied to Administrator C Override
derived from principle: Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition Violated by Administrator C
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Administrator C (City Administrator)
obligationclass: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance Obligation
obligationstatement: Administrator C violated the prohibition against assigning engineering responsible charge to an unlicensed technician by formally designating Technician B as having complete responsible charge of the entire sanitary system via letter and memo.
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
temporalscope: Upon issuance of the letter and subsequent memo assigning responsible charge to Technician B
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.248488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

City Administrator C Safety-Suppressing Supervisor
type: Safety-SuppressingNon-EngineerMunicipalAdministrator
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Invoked Against Administrator C
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining Invoked Against Administrator C Deferral
adheres to principle: Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition Violated by Administrator C
has obligation: Administrator C Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition Violation
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'position': 'City Administrator', 'authority': 'Direct supervisor of City Engineer; controls chain of command for public works'}
caseinvolvement: Non-engineer municipal administrator who is Engineer A's direct supervisor; dismisses reported sanitary system capacity warnings, orders Engineer A to restrict communications, reassigns engineering responsible charge to unlicensed Technician B, places Engineer A on probation, and threatens termination to suppress safety escalation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'reassigned_responsibility_to', 'target': 'Technician B'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'suppresses_reporting_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Safety-Suppressing Non-Engineer Municipal Administrator
sourcetext: Engineer A is directly responsible to City Administrator C
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system
textreferences: Engineer A is directly responsible to City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.257383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Advisory to Technician B
type: CovertAdvisoryContinuationUnderTerminationThreatState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's formal removal and probation order through the winter emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Technician B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
stateclass: Covert Advisory Continuation Under Termination Threat State
subject: Engineer A's ongoing covert technical guidance to Technician B after formal removal from sanitary system responsibility and under active termination threat
terminatedby: Onset of imminent overflow emergency
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision to continue advising Technician B without Administrator C's knowledge despite formal removal and termination threat
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.252973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Sanitary System
type: EngineeringProfessionImageNon-CompromiseThroughEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board concluded its analysis by noting that Engineer A's failure to fulfill her public safety obligations did grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers, grounding the obligation in the collective professional interest as well as individual duty.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Accessory Liability Through Inaction Applied to Engineer A Water Supply Case
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Complicity Through Inaction
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Ethics Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to fulfill her public safety obligations not only for the immediate benefit of the public but also to preserve the integrity and public trust upon which the engineering profession depends, recognizing that permitting her professional duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety caused grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
sourcetext: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of inaction on the sanitary system safety concern
textreferences: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
textreferences: the premise upon which professional engineering exists the engineering registration process is founded upon the proposition that in order to protect the public health and safety, the state has an interest in regulating by law the practice of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.265510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Sanitary System
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedInstitutionalSafetyResponsibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government, with specific assigned responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, making her the sole qualified professional capable of identifying and escalating the overflow risk.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as City Engineer
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Obligation
obligationstatement: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned institutional responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened safety obligation requiring more aggressive escalation than would be required of a private engineer encountering the same risk incidentally.
sourcetext: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of Engineer A's employment as City Engineer/Director of Public Works
textreferences: Engineer A has the responsibility for the disposal plant and beds and is directly responsible to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.247369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Servant Heightened External Reporting City Engineer Role
type: PublicServantEngineerHeightenedExternalReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board specifically emphasized that Engineer A's status as a public servant made her public safety obligation particularly clear, and found it not credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of the obligation to report to state authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as City Engineer
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Public Servant Engineer Heightened External Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a public servant in the role of city engineer and director of public works, bore a heightened obligation to report the water supply contamination risk to external state authorities — beyond what would be required of a private engineer — because her institutional role, legal authority, and access to public safety information created a stronger and more clearly defined duty to escalate externally when internal channels failed.
sourcetext: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
temporalscope: Upon recognition that internal city authorities had demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.265694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning Canning Season
type: SanitarySystemOverflowProactiveCapacityWarningObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified that the sanitary system lacked adequate capacity to handle the combined load of food processing plant discharges during canning season and rainy season stormwater, and reported this to Administrator C — who dismissed the concern with 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A for Overflow Warning
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively identify and formally communicate to supervisory authorities the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds to handle the coincidence of canning season industrial discharge and rainy season stormwater, before the crisis materialized, and to persist in that communication despite Administrator C's resistance.
sourcetext: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized
temporalscope: Prior to the canning/rainy season when overflow risk was foreseeable
textreferences: Administrator C's response of 'we will face the problem when it comes' represented a deferral of safety action
textreferences: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Resistance Administrator C Assignment
type: UnlicensedTechnicianResponsibleChargeAssignmentResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Administrator-Ordered Responsible Charge Transfer to Technician B
casecontext: Administrator C formally assigned Technician B 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system via memo, removing Engineer A from the chain of command. Engineer A did not adequately resist this assignment or escalate it to proper authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention Obligation Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist Administrator C's formal assignment of responsible charge of the entire sanitary system to Technician B — a non-licensed technician — by escalating to appropriate authorities, recognizing that the formal assignment of engineering responsible charge to an unlicensed individual constituted an unlawful and ethically impermissible act endangering public safety.
sourcetext: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Administrator C's memo formally assigning responsible charge to Technician B
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy
type: WhistleblowerEmploymentJeopardyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period in which Engineer A faced the decision whether to escalate to state authorities
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment
stateclass: Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy State
subject: Engineer A's employment situation as city engineer and director of public works
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: While we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise
textreferences: the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment
triggeringevent: The recognized consequence that reporting to state authorities would likely result in loss of employment
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.254838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Sanitary System Overflow
type: Multi-AuthorityEscalationObligationforUnresolvedPublicSafetyThreats
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State water pollution control authority as mandatory reporting recipient
appliedto: Unresolved sanitary system overflow risk after internal escalation failure
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After internal escalation to Administrator C failed and city council escalation produced no action, Engineer A's unresolved public safety concern about sanitary system overflow required escalation to multiple authorities simultaneously — including the state water pollution control authority (mandated by law) and potentially the state engineering licensing board regarding the unlicensed responsible charge assignment
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When internal escalation to Administrator C and city council produced no remedial action, Engineer A's obligation expanded to encompass simultaneous escalation to all authorities with jurisdiction — the state water pollution control authority for the overflow condition and the licensing board for the unlicensed responsible charge assignment
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation for Unresolved Public Safety Threats
sourcetext: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
tensionresolution: After exhausting internal channels without resolution, the multi-authority escalation obligation activated; the graduated internal escalation principle was satisfied by Engineer A's repeated internal reports, triggering the external escalation duty
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.243962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Invoked Against Administrator C
type: Non-EngineerSafetyDecisionAuthorityLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrator C's dismissal of Engineer A's overflow warnings
appliedto: Administrator C's suppression of escalation to city council and state authority
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Administrator C, a non-licensed municipal administrator, dismissed Engineer A's technically grounded warnings about sanitary system overflow risk with the statement 'we will face the problem when it comes' and suppressed further reporting — exercising safety decision authority that properly belongs to licensed engineering judgment, not administrative convenience
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A non-engineer administrator's decision to defer action on an engineer-identified safety risk does not constitute a professionally valid safety determination; Engineer A's obligation to escalate persisted despite Administrator C's dismissal
invokedby: City Administrator C Safety-Suppressing Supervisor
principleclass: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
tensionresolution: Non-engineer administrators cannot make final safety determinations on engineering matters; Engineer A was ethically required to escalate beyond Administrator C's authority
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.242923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk from Sanitary System Overflow
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial identification of inadequate capacity through the winter storm emergency
affectedparties: City residents
affectedparties: Environmental resources
affectedparties: Public downstream of river
affectedparties: State water quality authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Risk of raw domestic and vegetable waste overflow into the local river due to inadequate pond capacity during combined canning and rainy season
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; escalates to imminent emergency during winter storms
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river
triggeringevent: Engineer A's technical assessment that the disposal plant and beds have inadequate capacity to handle combined canning and rainy season loads
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.253311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Superior Authority Suppression of State Regulatory Reporting
type: SuperiorAuthoritySuppressionofRegulatoryReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period of Engineer A's internal escalation attempts
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
stateclass: Superior Authority Suppression of Regulatory Reporting Obligation State
subject: City Administrator C's direction channeling Engineer A's reporting internally rather than to state water pollution control authority
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority)
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
triggeringevent: City Administrator C's pattern of disregarding the law and redirecting Engineer A's concerns away from state authorities
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.255239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Accessory Liability Through Inaction Applied to Engineer A Water Supply Case
type: AccessoryLiabilityThroughInactionAfterPattern-of-DisregardRecognition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's failure to escalate to state water pollution control authority
appliedto: Ongoing water supply contamination violation
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Premature External Escalation Reputational Harm Avoidance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's continued inaction after recognizing a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by City Administrator C and city council members — despite repeated internal reports — made her ethically complicit as an 'accessory' to the continuing water supply contamination violation.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Once Engineer A had accumulated sufficient evidence of a pattern of disregard and could reasonably conclude that no internal action would be taken and that probable public danger existed, her continued inaction transitioned from passive non-escalation to active ethical complicity in the ongoing violation.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Accessory Liability Through Inaction After Pattern-of-Disregard Recognition
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
tensionresolution: The pattern of disregard and the threshold of reasonable certainty of no-action combined with probable danger resolved the tension in favor of mandatory external escalation; continued inaction beyond this threshold constitutes accessory complicity.
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council.
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
textreferences: we would suggest that such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council and, that in her professional judgment, a probable danger to the public safety and health then existed.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.247713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation Permissibility
type: Employer-ProhibitedCityCouncilSafetyEscalationPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Administrator C Suppression of Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: Engineer A Unauthorized Council Escalation
casecontext: Administrator C ordered Engineer A not to discuss the sanitary system overflow risk with city council members under threat of termination. Engineer A nonetheless privately escalated to certain council members, which the Board found was appropriate — though ultimately insufficient because city officials were not the 'proper authorities.'
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tension with Administrator C Orders
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Administrator C's order not to discuss the sanitary system safety matter with city council members — under threat of termination — was ethically impermissible, and that escalating the safety concern to elected city council members was not only permissible but obligatory.
sourcetext: Under the facts it appears that Engineer A has fulfilled this specific aspect of her obligation by reporting her concerns to City Administrator C and thereafter to certain members of the city council.
temporalscope: Upon Administrator C's order prohibiting communication with city council about the safety concern
textreferences: However, under the facts of this case, we believe Engineer A had an ethical obligation under the Code to go considerably farther.
textreferences: Under the facts it appears that Engineer A has fulfilled this specific aspect of her obligation by reporting her concerns to City Administrator C and thereafter to certain members of the city council.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger Applied to Engineer A Reporting Timeline
type: Internal-to-ExternalEscalationTriggerUponDemonstratedPatternofDisregard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's internal escalation to City Administrator C and city council
appliedto: Transition point to mandatory external reporting to state water pollution control authority
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Premature External Escalation Reputational Harm Avoidance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board articulates the specific threshold at which Engineer A's obligation to report to state authorities was triggered: when she was reasonably certain that no action would be taken by City Administrator C or city council members, and when in her professional judgment a probable danger to public safety and health existed — both conditions being necessary.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The dual-condition threshold (reasonable certainty of no internal action + probable danger in professional judgment) defines the precise moment at which continued internal advocacy becomes ethically insufficient and external reporting becomes mandatory.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger Upon Demonstrated Pattern of Disregard
sourcetext: we would suggest that such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council and, that in her professional judgment, a probable danger to the public safety and health then existed.
tensionresolution: The dual-condition threshold balances the value of internal resolution against the imperative of external protection; once both conditions are met, the balance tips decisively toward mandatory external reporting.
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
textreferences: It is difficult for us to say exactly at what point Engineer A should have reported her concerns to the 'appropriate authorities.' However, we would suggest that such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council and, that in her professional judgment, a probable danger to the public safety and health then existed.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.248180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Project Withdrawal Obligation Applied to Engineer A Sanitary System Disengagement
type: ProjectWithdrawalasEthicalRecourseWhenSafetyStandardsRejected
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's informal disengagement from sanitary system responsibility
appliedto: NSPE Code withdrawal requirement
balancingwith: Loyal
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's decision to 'assume no responsibility' for the plant and beds did not constitute adequate withdrawal from further service on the project as required by the Code; proper withdrawal requires affirmative disengagement and reporting, not merely informal assumption of non-responsibility.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, withdrawal from further service requires affirmative, formal disengagement accompanied by reporting to proper authorities — informal assumption of non-responsibility does not satisfy the ethical withdrawal obligation.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse When Safety Standards Rejected
sourcetext: Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
tensionresolution: The withdrawal obligation is not satisfied by informal distancing; it requires affirmative action that includes both disengagement and reporting to proper authorities.
textreferences: Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
textreferences: the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.248702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation Applied to Engineer A
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's obligation to report to state water pollution control authority
appliedto: Engineer A's role as city engineer and director of public works
balancingwith: Employer Policy Compliance Obligation in Concurrent Private Practice
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board specifically emphasizes that Engineer A's status as a public servant — city engineer and director of public works — makes her public safety reporting obligation particularly clear and heightened, because her public employment role creates both a professional engineering duty and a public trust duty that reinforce each other.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A licensed engineer in a formal public agency role with legal designation bears a heightened obligation to pursue public safety concerns through all available channels, including external regulatory authorities, beyond what might be expected of a private consulting engineer.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
tensionresolution: The heightened public trust duty of a public employee engineer reinforces rather than competes with the general public safety obligation; it makes the external reporting obligation particularly clear and non-deferrable.
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.247225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

City Administrator C Non-Engineer Override of Engineer A's Authority
type: Non-EngineerAuthorityDirectingEngineeringSafetyDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period in which City Administrator C directed the course of action regarding the water supply contamination, overriding Engineer A's professional recommendations
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
stateclass: Non-Engineer Authority Directing Engineering Safety Decision State
subject: City Administrator C's exercise of authority over engineering safety matters within Engineer A's domain
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities'
triggeringevent: City Administrator C's rejection of Engineer A's safety recommendations and circumvention of her engineering authority
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.254682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure and Termination Threat
type: EmploymentPressureAbrogationofSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Administrator C's first warning that Engineer A's job is in danger through the winter emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City Council members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys
stateclass: Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's employment security versus professional obligation to escalate sanitary system safety concerns
terminatedby: Onset of imminent overflow emergency requiring mandatory regulatory notification
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated
triggeringevent: Administrator C's explicit warning that Engineer A's job is in danger if she continues to discuss the problem with city officials
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.252274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted — City Officials Complicit
type: InternalEscalationExhaustedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: After Engineer A reported to City Administrator C and certain city council members without corrective action being taken
affectedparties: City Administrator C
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority (not yet notified)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:34:08.958899+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
stateclass: Internal Escalation Exhausted State
subject: Engineer A's internal reporting pathway within the city government
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A did not proceed to external escalation
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
triggeringevent: City Administrator C and city council members failed to act on Engineer A's repeated safety concerns
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.254374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention Obligation Applied to Engineer A
type: EngineeringAuthorityNon-CircumventionbyNon-EngineerSupervisorsinPublicSafetyMatters
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assignment of responsible charge to Technician B
appliedto: City Administrator C's override of Engineer A's professional safety determinations
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as the legally established city engineer and director of public works, permitted her professional engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by City Administrator C (a non-engineer) in matters involving public safety, constituting an independent ethical violation requiring reporting to proper authorities.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The circumvention of a licensed engineer's professional authority by a non-engineer supervisor on safety-critical matters is itself an ethical violation that must be reported to proper authorities, independent of the underlying safety concern.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention by Non-Engineer Supervisors in Public Safety Matters
sourcetext: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
tensionresolution: The engineer's professional authority on safety matters cannot be validly overridden by organizational hierarchy; the engineer's obligation to report the circumvention is independent of and in addition to the obligation to report the underlying safety concern.
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: In addition, we find it troubling that Engineer A would permit her professional integrity to be compromised in the manner herein described.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.247530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Satisfied by Engineer A
type: GraduatedInternalEscalationBeforeExternalReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Escalation to city council members
appliedto: Internal escalation to Administrator C
appliedto: Pending escalation to state water pollution control authority
balancingwith: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A satisfied the graduated internal escalation obligation by first reporting to Administrator C, then escalating to city council members, before the situation reached the point of mandatory external reporting to the state water pollution control authority — demonstrating that internal channels were exhausted before external escalation was triggered
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's sequential internal escalation — from direct supervisor to elected officials — satisfied the graduated internal escalation requirement, and the failure of both internal channels to produce remedial action triggered the external reporting obligation to the state authority
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
tensionresolution: Internal escalation was attempted and failed; the graduated escalation principle was satisfied, activating the external reporting obligation; note that the statutory reporting duty may independently require external reporting regardless of internal escalation status
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.244876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Imminent Waste Discharge Mandatory State Reporting Obligation Activated
type: ImminentEnvironmentalDischargeRequiringMandatoryStateNotificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which it becomes obvious that overflow is imminent during the heavy winter storms
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public/river users
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority
affectedparties: Technician B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river
stateclass: Imminent Environmental Discharge Requiring Mandatory State Notification State
subject: The imminent overflow of waste ponds into the local river during the winter storm, triggering mandatory statutory reporting to the state water pollution control authority
terminatedby: Notification to state water pollution control authority, or actual discharge event
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
triggeringevent: Heavy winter storms making it obvious that waste ponds will overflow levees and dump all waste into the river unless controlled release occurs
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.253656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Internal Escalation Exhausted — Sanitary System Safety
type: InternalEscalationExhaustedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Administrator C's second warning and probation order through the winter emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City Council
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated
stateclass: Internal Escalation Exhausted State
subject: Engineer A's exhaustion of all available internal escalation channels — direct supervisor, city council members — without achieving corrective action on the sanitary system capacity deficiency
terminatedby: Onset of imminent overflow emergency requiring mandatory external regulatory notification
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
triggeringevent: Administrator C's formal probation order prohibiting further discussion, after Engineer A had already escalated to both Administrator C and city council members
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.253488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Non-Engineer Administrator Directing Engineering Safety System
type: Non-EngineerAuthorityDirectingEngineeringSafetyDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the administrative reorganization letter through the winter emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Technician B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command
stateclass: Non-Engineer Authority Directing Engineering Safety Decision State
subject: Administrator C exercising direct command authority over the city sanitary system — a safety-critical engineering system — without engineering credentials, bypassing the licensed PE
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command
textreferences: Technician B is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C
triggeringevent: Administrator C's directive placing Technician B directly under his command for the sanitary system, removing Engineer A from the engineering chain of command
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.253135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Applied to Administrator C Override
type: Non-EngineerSafetyDecisionAuthorityLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assignment of responsible charge to Technician B
appliedto: City Administrator C's dismissal of Engineer A's safety warnings
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: City Administrator C, as a non-licensed non-engineer municipal administrator, lacked the professional authority to override Engineer A's safety determinations regarding sanitary system capacity and water supply contamination, and his dismissal of Engineer A's concerns did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation to escalate.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Non-engineer supervisors cannot make final determinations on safety-critical engineering matters; their failure to act on engineer-identified safety concerns does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation and requires the engineer to escalate beyond non-engineer management.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
tensionresolution: The non-engineer administrator's organizational authority does not extend to overriding professional engineering safety determinations; the engineer's obligation to escalate persists regardless of non-engineer supervisor dismissal.
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.249439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A for Overflow Warning
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Proposed solutions for overflow prevention
appliedto: Sanitary system capacity inadequacy warning to Administrator C
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A proactively identified and communicated the inadequate capacity of the disposal plant and beds before the canning/rainy season crisis materialized, offering possible solutions — demonstrating the professional obligation to disclose identified risks before harm occurs rather than waiting for the crisis
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive risk disclosure required Engineer A to communicate the overflow risk with sufficient specificity and urgency to enable remedial action, and to persist in that communication when initial reports were dismissed
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
tensionresolution: Proactive risk disclosure obligation was not discharged by a single internal report; Engineer A's repeated escalation to multiple authorities reflected proper fulfillment of the proactive disclosure duty
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.244344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as City Engineer
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Engineer/Director of Public Works role
appliedto: Sanitary system disposal plant and beds responsibility
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: As the sole licensed professional engineer in the city government with assigned responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, Engineer A bore a heightened dual obligation — as both a licensed engineer and a public trust holder — to pursue sanitary system safety concerns through all available channels, including direct escalation to city council and ultimately to state regulatory authorities
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's public employment role amplifies the standard engineering public safety obligation: as the only licensed PE in city government, her failure to escalate would leave the public with no professional advocate within the institution
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
tensionresolution: The heightened public safety obligation of a public employee engineer overrides deference to the internal chain of command when the chain of command is actively suppressing safety reporting
textreferences: Engineer A has the responsibility for the disposal plant and beds and is directly responsible to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.242749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator C Suppression of Regulatory Reporting
type: SuperiorAuthoritySuppressionofRegulatoryReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Administrator C's first directive through the winter emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State water pollution control authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys
stateclass: Superior Authority Suppression of Regulatory Reporting Obligation State
subject: Administrator C's directives channeling all sanitary system communications through himself and prohibiting Engineer A from reporting to external authorities
terminatedby: Imminent overflow emergency activating mandatory statutory reporting obligation
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
triggeringevent: Administrator C's order restricting Engineer A's communications and threatening termination for disobedience
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.252595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Supervisor Override Engineering Authority Preservation Administrator C
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorSafetyOverrideEngineeringAuthorityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: City Administrator C Non-Engineer Override of Engineer A's Authority
defeasible under: Non-Engineer Administrator Directing Engineering Safety System
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: Administrator C, a non-licensed non-engineer municipal administrator, formally removed Engineer A from responsible charge of the sanitary system, assigned Technician B, and ordered Engineer A not to discuss the matter with city council — all of which Engineer A permitted without adequate resistance or escalation to proper authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention Obligation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Applied to Administrator C Override
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Safety Override Engineering Authority Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist Administrator C's circumvention and overruling of her engineering authority over the sanitary system safety matter, rather than permitting a non-engineer administrator to override her professional safety determinations under circumstances involving public safety.
sourcetext: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
temporalscope: Upon Administrator C's formal removal of Engineer A from responsible charge and subsequent orders suppressing safety communication
textreferences: As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
textreferences: In addition, we find it troubling that Engineer A would permit her professional integrity to be compromised in the manner herein described.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report this occurrence to the 'proper authorities' as stated above.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.265850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Mandatory Obligation vs Personal Conscience Right Water Contamination
type: PublicSafetyEndangermentWhistleblowingMandatoryObligationNon-EquivalencetoPersonalConscienceRightObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: The Board distinguished this case from Case 82-5 (internal dispute, whistleblowing = right) and Case 65-12 (unsafe machinery, refusal = justified), finding that water supply contamination constitutes direct public safety endangerment triggering mandatory reporting obligation rather than discretionary right.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Whistleblowing Right vs. Obligation Distinction Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Public Safety Endangerment Whistleblowing Mandatory Obligation Non-Equivalence to Personal Conscience Right Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A bore a mandatory ethical obligation — not merely a personal conscience right — to report the water supply contamination risk to proper authorities and withdraw from the project, because the situation directly involved endangerment of public safety, health, and welfare, distinguishing it from the Case 82-5 scenario which was an internal employer-employee dispute not directly involving public safety.
sourcetext: where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
temporalscope: Upon determination that the sanitary system overflow posed a probable danger to public safety and health
textreferences: Clearly, the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare' the contamination of the water supply and therefore it is clear that Engineer A has an obligation to report the matter to her employer.
textreferences: We emphasized, however, that the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee.
textreferences: where an engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an 'ethical right' but has an 'ethical obligation' to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.265307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable Applied to Wastewater Overflow
type: MandatoryStatutoryReportingObligationNon-DeferrablebyEmployerOrder
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Administrator C's orders suppressing external reporting
appliedto: Engineer A's obligation to report to state water pollution control authority
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's statutory obligation to report wastewater overflow conditions to the state water pollution control authority could not be deferred or nullified by City Administrator C's orders or by the city council's failure to act; the statutory duty ran independently of the internal organizational chain of command.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The mandatory statutory reporting obligation to the state water pollution control authority superseded Administrator C's organizational authority and the city council's political inaction; Engineer A's compliance with internal orders did not discharge the statutory duty.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
tensionresolution: The statutory reporting obligation is non-deferrable by employer order; organizational authority cannot nullify a legal duty to report to regulatory authorities.
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue
textreferences: the premise upon which professional engineering exists the engineering registration process is founded upon the proposition that in order to protect the public health and safety, the state has an interest in regulating by law the practice of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.250020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Administrator-Ordered Responsible Charge Transfer to Technician B
type: UnlicensedTechnicianResponsibleChargeDelegationbyAdministrativeOrderState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Administrator C's letter to Technician B through the winter emergency
affectedparties: Administrator C
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Technician B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.641417+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C
stateclass: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Delegation by Administrative Order State
subject: Formal administrative reassignment of responsible charge over the city sanitary system from licensed PE Engineer A to unlicensed Technician B
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; persists through the emergency
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C
triggeringevent: Administrator C's written letter instructing Technician B to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to Administrator C, bypassing Engineer A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.252783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Employment Loss Acceptance Obligation Applied to Engineer A Whistleblowing Decision
type: EmploymentLossAcceptanceasCostofPublicSafetyWhistleblowing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision whether to report to state water pollution control authority
appliedto: Engineering profession's collective integrity
balancingwith: At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledges that Engineer A, like engineers in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, would likely face employment consequences for reporting to state authorities against her supervisor's wishes, but holds that this foreseeable cost does not diminish the ethical obligation, and that permitting professional obligations to be compromised by fear of employment loss causes grave damage to the engineering profession.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The employment loss risk is acknowledged as real and sobering, but is explicitly held insufficient to excuse non-compliance with the public safety reporting obligation; the collective professional harm from individual capitulation to employment pressure outweighs the individual cost of compliance.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
sourcetext: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
tensionresolution: The collective professional interest in maintaining public trust and the individual ethical obligation to protect public safety together override the personal interest in employment security when public safety is genuinely at stake.
textreferences: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
textreferences: While we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.248017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting to State Authority
type: MandatoryStatutoryWastewaterOverflowReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: During the canning/rainy season, it became obvious that wastewater ponds would overflow levees and dump waste into the local river; state law mandated reporting this condition to the state water pollution control authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable Applied to Wastewater Overflow
derived from principle: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order Invoked for Wastewater Overflow
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated under state law and professional ethics to report the imminent wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority, notwithstanding Administrator C's orders to the contrary.
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
temporalscope: Upon it becoming obvious that overflow was imminent during the heavy storms of the canning season
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.245978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Water Supply Contamination Reporting Public Engineer
type: CityEngineerPublicWelfareEscalationObligatedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance Public Safety Whistleblowing Sanitary System
has obligation: Engineer A Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Sanitary System
has obligation: Engineer A Genuine Project Withdrawal Non-Substitution Sanitary System
has obligation: Engineer A Pattern-of-Disregard State Authority Escalation Sanitary Overflow
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Internal-Exhaustion External Reporting State Water Authority
has obligation: Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Sanitary System
has obligation: Engineer A Public Safety Mandatory Obligation vs Personal Conscience Right Water Contamination
has obligation: Engineer A Public Servant Heightened External Reporting City Engineer Role
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'title': 'City Engineer and Director of Public Works', 'sector': 'Public/Municipal', 'gender': 'Female (she/her)'}
caseinvolvement: City Engineer and Director of Public Works who identified water supply contamination risk, reported internally to City Administrator C and city council members, but failed to escalate to state water pollution control authorities, allowing the violation to continue and rendering her an accessory to the ongoing legal violation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:33:59.525663+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_report_to', 'target': 'State Water Pollution Control Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'protects', 'target': 'Water Supply Public Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to_internally', 'target': 'City Council Members'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'City Administrator C'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Engineer Public Welfare Escalation Obligated Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to report the matter to her employer
textreferences: Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical obligation under the Code to go considerably farther
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to report the matter to her employer
textreferences: Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory'
textreferences: the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works)
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.258423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation Technician B Sanitary System
type: CovertAdvisoryContinuationSafetyPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Post-Internal-Exhaustion External Reporting State Water Authority
defeasible under: Engineer A Covert Advisory to Technician B
casecontext: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly without Administrator C's knowledge. The Board acknowledged this as a partial measure but found it insufficient to discharge Engineer A's full public safety obligations.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Covert Advisory Continuation Safety Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's covert advisory to Technician B after being formally removed from responsible charge constituted a partial ethical compliance measure to preserve public safety, but was insufficient as a substitute for the full obligations of external reporting and genuine project withdrawal.
sourcetext: Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge
temporalscope: After Administrator C's formal removal of Engineer A from responsible charge and assignment of Technician B
textreferences: Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge
textreferences: It is clear under the facts of this case that Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance Public Safety Whistleblowing Sanitary System
type: EmploymentLossAcceptanceasMandatoryCostofPublicSafetyWhistleblowingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Sanitary System Safety
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Pressure and Termination Threat
defeasible under: Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy
prevails over: Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Sanitary System Safety
casecontext: Administrator C threatened Engineer A with termination if she escalated the sanitary system safety concern to city council members. The Board acknowledged this employment risk but affirmed that the mandatory public safety obligation required Engineer A to report to state authorities regardless of the employment consequence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Employment Loss Acceptance Obligation Applied to Engineer A Whistleblowing Decision
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Employment Loss Acceptance as Mandatory Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accept the potential loss of employment as the cost of fulfilling her mandatory public safety reporting obligation to state authorities, recognizing that the NSPE Code's requirement to report to proper authorities when public safety is endangered cannot be conditioned on employment security.
sourcetext: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
temporalscope: Upon recognition that reporting to state authorities was required and that such reporting would likely result in employment loss
textreferences: As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
textreferences: We recognized in that case that such action by the engineers would likely lead to the loss of employment.
textreferences: While we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health and safety, we were to decide otherwise.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Genuine Project Withdrawal Non-Substitution Sanitary System
type: GenuineProjectWithdrawalNon-SubstitutionbyResponsibilityDisclaimerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation to Technician B
defeasible under: Administrator-Ordered Responsible Charge Transfer to Technician B
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk from Sanitary System Overflow
prevails over: Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation to Technician B
casecontext: After Administrator C removed Engineer A from formal responsibility for the sanitary system and assigned Technician B, Engineer A declared she assumed no responsibility for the plant and beds — which the Board found insufficient as a withdrawal from further service.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Project Withdrawal Obligation Applied to Engineer A Sanitary System Disengagement
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Genuine Project Withdrawal Non-Substitution by Responsibility Disclaimer Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to genuinely withdraw from further service on the sanitary system project rather than merely declaring she assumed no responsibility for the plant and beds, because the latter did not constitute the withdrawal required by the NSPE Code when public safety was endangered.
sourcetext: Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
temporalscope: Upon recognition that internal authorities would not act on safety concerns and that public safety was endangered
textreferences: Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
textreferences: the Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.265155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Subordination Safety Reporting Political Budgetary Deferral
type: Non-SubordinationofSafetyReportingtoPoliticalBargainingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
defeasible under: City Administrator C Non-Engineer Override of Engineer A's Authority
defeasible under: Inadequate Sanitary System Capacity Warning Ignored by Administrator C
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: Administrator C responded to Engineer A's overflow warnings with a deferral strategy rather than corrective action, effectively treating the safety concern as a future administrative problem rather than an immediate engineering obligation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining Invoked Against Administrator C Deferral
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to accept Administrator C's 'we will face the problem when it comes' deferral as a legitimate resolution of the sanitary system overflow risk, recognizing that deferring safety action to a future crisis moment subordinates public safety to administrative convenience.
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
temporalscope: Upon Administrator C's response of 'we will face the problem when it comes'
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.248320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance
type: UnlicensedTechnicianResponsibleChargeAssignmentResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
defeasible under: Administrator-Ordered Responsible Charge Transfer to Technician B
defeasible under: Non-Engineer Administrator Directing Engineering Safety System
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: Administrator C removed Engineer A from the chain of command via letter and then memo, formally assigning Technician B — a non-licensed technician — complete responsible charge of the sanitary system.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition Violated by Administrator C
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist and escalate Administrator C's formal assignment of engineering responsible charge of the entire sanitary system to Technician B, an unlicensed technician, as this constituted an unlawful and ethically impermissible act.
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Administrator C's letter and subsequent memo assigning responsible charge to Technician B
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.246131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining Invoked Against Administrator C Deferral
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrator C's deferral of sanitary system remediation
appliedto: Administrator C's suppression of Engineer A's escalation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Administrator C's response of 'we will face the problem when it comes' represented a deferral of safety action that subordinated public safety to administrative convenience and political inertia; Engineer A's obligation was to refuse this subordination and insist on proactive remediation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Administrative deferral of a known engineering safety risk — particularly one that will predictably materialize during a foreseeable seasonal event — constitutes an impermissible subordination of public safety to administrative convenience
invokedby: City Administrator C Safety-Suppressing Supervisor
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
tensionresolution: The non-subordination principle required Engineer A to continue escalating despite Administrator C's deferral; the deferral did not constitute a professionally valid safety determination
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.245204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Highest Engineering Obligation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's escalation decisions
appliedto: Water supply contamination reporting obligation
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE Board affirms that holding paramount public safety, health, and welfare is the most basic and first-stated obligation of the engineering profession, grounded in the public trust rationale for professional licensure, and that when this obligation conflicts with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy, public welfare must prevail.
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:46:19.188677+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to report water supply contamination to state authorities even against employer directives, because the contamination of a public water supply constitutes direct endangerment of public health and welfare.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: The engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation is deemed the higher obligation when in conflict with employer loyalty or organizational hierarchy; the latter cannot override the former in matters of public safety endangerment.
textreferences: Clearly, the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare' the contamination of the water supply
textreferences: The engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic.
textreferences: where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.255575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Limitation Wastewater Overflow State Authority
type: ConfidentialityScopeLimitationforPublicDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
defeasible under: Administrator C Suppression of Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: Imminent Waste Discharge Mandatory State Reporting Obligation Activated
defeasible under: Superior Authority Suppression of State Regulatory Reporting
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: Administrator C ordered Engineer A to discuss the problem only with him, effectively imposing an internal communication restriction; this restriction could not lawfully or ethically bar Engineer A from reporting to the state water pollution control authority as required by state law.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked for State Authority Reporting
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Administrator C's internal communication restriction did not constitute a legitimate confidentiality obligation barring disclosure of the wastewater overflow risk to the state water pollution control authority, because the paramount duty to protect public welfare from environmental contamination superseded any internal communication restriction.
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: From the date of Administrator C's communication restriction order through the overflow crisis
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.247853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation to Technician B
type: CovertAdvisoryContinuationSafetyPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Genuine Project Withdrawal Non-Substitution Sanitary System
defeasible under: Administrator-Ordered Responsible Charge Transfer to Technician B
defeasible under: Engineer A Covert Advisory to Technician B
casecontext: After being placed on probation and removed from sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B without Administrator C's knowledge, while Technician B managed the system under formal responsible charge assignment.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Covert Advisory Continuation Safety Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was ethically justified and partially obligated to continue advising Technician B covertly on sanitary system management after being formally removed from responsible charge, as a partial compliance measure to preserve public safety in the absence of any other available mechanism.
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
temporalscope: From the date of formal removal from responsible charge through the canning/rainy season crisis
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.246283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation
type: Employer-ProhibitedCityCouncilSafetyEscalationPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
defeasible under: Administrator C Suppression of Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Pressure and Termination Threat
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: Administrator C ordered Engineer A to discuss the problem only with him and warned her job was in danger if she disobeyed; Engineer A nonetheless privately brought the problem to city council members and other city officials.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Administrator C Termination Threat
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the sanitary system overflow risk to city council members despite Administrator C's explicit prohibition and termination threat, because the paramount duty to public safety superseded the employer's suppression directive.
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: After Administrator C's prohibition order and before the canning/rainy season crisis
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.246590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential wastewater overflow into local river during canning/rainy season
appliedto: Sanitary system capacity inadequacy
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A identified that inadequate sanitary system capacity during the rainy/canning season would cause wastewater overflow into the local river, threatening public health and water quality, and repeatedly escalated this concern despite organizational suppression
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to report the overflow risk to all available authorities — including city council members and ultimately the state water pollution control authority — even against explicit employer orders and termination threats, because the public's access to uncontaminated water is a non-negotiable welfare interest
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides employer loyalty and faithful agent obligations when the employer's directive would suppress reporting of an imminent public health hazard; Engineer A's repeated escalation was ethically required
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.259945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked for State Authority Reporting
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrator C's orders restricting Engineer A's communications
appliedto: State water pollution control authority reporting obligation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Any confidentiality or internal communication restriction imposed by Administrator C on Engineer A's discussions of the sanitary system overflow risk did not bar Engineer A from advising the state water pollution control authority of the apparent danger to public water quality, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Internal employer confidentiality or communication restrictions cannot operate to suppress disclosure of public danger to regulatory authorities; the public danger disclosure exception applies to override Administrator C's suppression orders
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
tensionresolution: The public danger disclosure exception to confidentiality/communication restrictions is activated by the imminent overflow risk; Engineer A's obligation to report to the state authority was not barred by Administrator C's orders
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.244699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Sanitary System Safety
type: EmploymentPressureNon-SubordinationofPublicSafetyDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance Public Safety Whistleblowing Sanitary System
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Pressure Abrogating Safety Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Pressure and Termination Threat
defeasible under: Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy
casecontext: Administrator C warned Engineer A that her job was in danger if she continued to escalate the sanitary system overflow concern; Engineer A was subsequently placed on probation and ordered not to discuss the matter further under threat of termination.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Administrator C Termination Threat
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Public Safety Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to subordinate her professional safety determination regarding sanitary system overflow risk to Administrator C's employment threats, probation order, and termination warnings.
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Administrator C's escalating employment threats
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.246768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Internal Escalation Sanitary System Overflow
type: GraduatedInternalEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting State Authority
defeasible under: Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted — City Officials Complicit
defeasible under: Imminent Waste Discharge Mandatory State Reporting Obligation Activated
defeasible under: Internal Escalation Exhausted — Sanitary System Safety
casecontext: Engineer A first reported to Administrator C, then escalated privately to city council members when Administrator C dismissed the concern, satisfying the graduated internal escalation requirement before the statutory external reporting obligation was triggered.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Satisfied by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Graduated Internal Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to pursue graduated internal escalation of the sanitary system overflow risk — first to Administrator C, then to city council members — before or in conjunction with external escalation to the state water pollution control authority.
sourcetext: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
temporalscope: From initial identification of capacity inadequacy through the canning/rainy season crisis
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.246917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Pattern-of-Disregard State Authority Escalation Sanitary Overflow
type: Pattern-of-Disregard-TriggeredStateAuthorityEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
defeasible under: Engineer A Accessory Liability Through Inaction
defeasible under: Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted — City Officials Complicit
defeasible under: Internal Escalation Exhausted — Sanitary System Safety
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
casecontext: Engineer A reported to Administrator C and privately to city council members, but neither took action. The Board found that after recognizing this pattern of disregard, Engineer A should have escalated to the state water pollution control authority — the proper external authority — rather than continuing to rely on internal channels.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger Applied to Engineer A Reporting Timeline
derived from principle: Proper Authority Identification Obligation Applied to Engineer A State Reporting
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Pattern-of-Disregard-Triggered State Authority Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the sanitary system overflow risk to the state water pollution control authority once she recognized a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by Administrator C and city council members, because at that point internal officials no longer constituted 'proper authorities' under the NSPE Code.
sourcetext: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
temporalscope: At such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken by Administrator C or city council members and that a probable danger to public safety existed
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
textreferences: We cannot find it credible that a City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.265003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Administrator C Termination Threat
type: EngineerPressureResistanceandEthicalNon-SubordinationtoOrganizationalDemands
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrator C's suppression orders
appliedto: Probation and termination threat
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A continued to escalate sanitary system safety concerns to city council members and continued covert advisory to Technician B despite Administrator C's explicit orders, probation, and termination threats — demonstrating that organizational pressure does not extinguish professional ethical obligation
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Termination threats and probationary orders from a non-engineer supervisor do not constitute ethical justification for suppressing mandatory safety reporting; Engineer A's continued escalation reflects proper resistance to organizational pressure
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
sourcetext: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that organizational pressure, however severe (including job loss), does not override the engineer's public safety obligations; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.256876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition Violated by Administrator C
type: UnlicensedResponsibleChargeAssignmentProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Formal assignment of sanitary system responsible charge to Technician B
appliedto: Removal of Engineer A from sanitary system chain of command
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Administrator C formally assigned Technician B — a non-licensed technician — 'responsible charge' of the entire sanitary system via memo, removing the only licensed engineer (Engineer A) from the chain of command, in direct violation of the principle that responsible charge can only be held by a licensed professional engineer
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Administrator C's administrative memo cannot legally or ethically transfer engineering responsible charge to an unlicensed technician; the assignment is void as a matter of professional ethics and public protection, and Engineer A retained an obligation to challenge it
invokedby: City Administrator C Safety-Suppressing Supervisor
invokedby: Technician B Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignee
principleclass: Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition
sourcetext: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on unlicensed responsible charge assignment is non-waivable by administrative fiat; Engineer A's ethical obligation was to challenge the assignment formally, not merely to continue covert advisory
textreferences: City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government.
textreferences: Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.243283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting State Authority
type: MandatoryStatutoryWastewaterOverflowReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
competes with: Engineer A Graduated Internal Escalation Sanitary System Overflow
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
prevails over: Engineer A Graduated Internal Escalation Sanitary System Overflow
casecontext: State law mandated reporting of wastewater overflow conditions to the state water pollution control authority. Administrator C ordered Engineer A not to report and threatened termination. The Board found Engineer A had a mandatory statutory obligation to report that could not be overridden by Administrator C.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable Applied to Wastewater Overflow
derived from principle: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order Invoked for Wastewater Overflow
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated under state law to report the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority, regardless of Administrator C's orders to the contrary, because the statutory reporting obligation could not be deferred or suppressed by a non-engineer municipal administrator's directive.
sourcetext: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
temporalscope: Upon awareness that a wastewater overflow condition existed or was imminent
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
textreferences: Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Internal-Exhaustion External Reporting State Water Authority
type: Post-Internal-ExhaustionConditionalExternalReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
competes with: Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation Technician B Sanitary System
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
prevails over: Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation Technician B Sanitary System
casecontext: Internal escalation to Administrator C and city council members produced no corrective action; the overflow became imminent during the canning/rainy season, triggering both the statutory and ethical external reporting obligation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger Applied to Engineer A Reporting Timeline
derived from principle: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Sanitary System Overflow
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:39:18.625356+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Post-Internal-Exhaustion Conditional External Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: After exhausting internal escalation channels — Administrator C dismissed the concern, city council members took no action, and Engineer A was removed from responsible charge and placed on probation — Engineer A was obligated to report the imminent overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority.
sourcetext: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
temporalscope: Upon exhaustion of internal escalation mechanisms and imminence of overflow condition
textreferences: City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
textreferences: It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.247064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tension with Administrator C Orders
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrator C's orders to restrict communication
appliedto: Administrator C's removal of Engineer A from sanitary system responsibility
balancingwith: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Administrator C required compliance with reasonable employer directives, but that obligation was bounded by the ethical limit that it could not require Engineer A to suppress mandatory safety reporting or accept an unlicensed responsible charge assignment — at which point the faithful agent duty yielded to the public welfare obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation is conditional on the employer's directives remaining within ethical bounds; Administrator C's orders crossed that boundary by suppressing mandatory statutory reporting and assigning unlicensed responsible charge
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A has the responsibility for the disposal plant and beds and is directly responsible to City Administrator C.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation yielded to the public welfare paramount and statutory reporting obligations; Engineer A's escalation over Administrator C's objection was ethically required
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
textreferences: Engineer A has the responsibility for the disposal plant and beds and is directly responsible to City Administrator C.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.244517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance Invoked by Engineer A
type: CovertAdvisoryContinuationasPartialEthicalCompliancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Covert advisory to Technician B after removal from sanitary system responsibility
balancingwith: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After being removed from formal sanitary system responsibility, Engineer A continued to advise Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — representing a partial mitigation of public safety risk but an insufficient substitute for formal escalation to the state water pollution control authority and the licensing board regarding the unlicensed responsible charge assignment
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer A's covert advisory represents a good-faith effort to maintain some professional oversight of a safety-critical system, but does not discharge the formal obligations to report the unlicensed assignment and the overflow risk to appropriate authorities
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
principleclass: Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
tensionresolution: Covert advisory mitigates immediate risk but does not substitute for formal escalation; Engineer A's full ethical obligation required both the covert advisory and formal reporting to state authorities
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.243487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order Invoked for Wastewater Overflow
type: MandatoryStatutoryReportingObligationNon-DeferrablebyEmployerOrder
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrator C's suppression orders
appliedto: State-law mandatory reporting of wastewater overflow to state water pollution control authority
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: State law mandated reporting of the wastewater overflow condition to the state water pollution control authority; Administrator C's orders and termination threats could not lawfully or ethically override this statutory reporting obligation, and Engineer A was required to report to the state authority regardless of internal organizational directives
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:08.179379+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The statutory reporting obligation is externally imposed by state law and runs directly to the regulatory authority; it cannot be nullified by an employer's internal chain-of-command directive or employment threat
invokedby: Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
invokedby: Engineer A Water Supply Contamination Reporting Public Engineer
principleclass: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order
sourcetext: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
tensionresolution: The statutory duty to report to the state water pollution control authority supersedes the internal chain of command; the graduated internal escalation principle does not apply when a mandatory legal reporting duty is triggered
textreferences: City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
textreferences: Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated.
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.243108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A City Engineer Sanitary System
type: MunicipalEnvironmentalComplianceEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked for State Authority Reporting
adheres to principle: Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Administrator C Termination Threat
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked for River Water Quality Protection
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tension with Administrator C Orders
adheres to principle: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Satisfied by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order Invoked for Wastewater Overflow
adheres to principle: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Sanitary System Overflow
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A for Overflow Warning
adheres to principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as City Engineer
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow
adheres to principle: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Invoked for Engineer A Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
has obligation: Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Limitation Wastewater Overflow State Authority
has obligation: Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation Technician B Sanitary System
has obligation: Engineer A Covert Advisory Continuation to Technician B
has obligation: Engineer A Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation Permissibility
has obligation: Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Sanitary System Safety
has obligation: Engineer A Graduated Internal Escalation Sanitary System Overflow
has obligation: Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting State Authority
has obligation: Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting to State Authority
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Engineer Supervisor Override Engineering Authority Preservation Administrator C
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Subordination Safety Reporting Political Budgetary Deferral
has obligation: Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning Canning Season
has obligation: Engineer A Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning to Administrator C
has obligation: Engineer A Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance
has obligation: Engineer A Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Resistance Administrator C Assignment
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (PE)', 'position': 'City Engineer / Director of Public Works', 'status': 'Sole licensed PE in city government', 'employment_status': 'On probation, threatened with termination', 'formal_responsibility': 'Removed from sanitary system responsibility by Administrator C'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed City Engineer/Director of Public Works who identifies inadequate sanitary system capacity, escalates internally to Administrator C and privately to city council members, is stripped of sanitary system responsibility and placed on probation, but continues covertly advising Technician B; faces imminent statutory obligation to report overflow conditions to state water pollution control authority.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:45.962736+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'escalated_to', 'target': 'City Council Members'}
relationships: {'type': 'must_notify', 'target': 'State Water Pollution Control Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'City Administrator C'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Technician B'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Municipal Environmental Compliance Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works
textreferences: Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
textreferences: Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director of Public Works
textreferences: Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds
textreferences: Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.257218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Administrator C Faithful Agent Tension
type: CompetingLoyaltyPublicSafetyPrimacyResolutionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Limitation Wastewater Overflow State Authority
competes with: Engineer A Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation
competes with: Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting State Authority
competes with: Engineer A Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting to State Authority
competes with: Engineer A Non-Subordination Safety Reporting Political Budgetary Deferral
competes with: Engineer A Pattern-of-Disregard State Authority Escalation Sanitary Overflow
competes with: Engineer A Post-Internal-Exhaustion External Reporting State Water Authority
competes with: Engineer A Public Safety Mandatory Obligation vs Personal Conscience Right Water Contamination
competes with: Engineer A Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance
defeasible under: Administrator C Suppression of Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: City Administrator C Non-Engineer Override of Engineer A's Authority
defeasible under: Competing Duties — Safety Obligation vs. Employer Loyalty
defeasible under: Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted — City Officials Complicit
defeasible under: Engineer A Public Servant Heightened External Reporting Obligation
defeasible under: Imminent Environmental Discharge Mandatory State Notification — Water Supply
defeasible under: Imminent Waste Discharge Mandatory State Reporting Obligation Activated
defeasible under: Internal Escalation Exhausted — Sanitary System Safety
defeasible under: Non-Engineer Administrator Directing Engineering Safety System
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk from Sanitary System Overflow
defeasible under: Superior Authority Suppression of State Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: Water Supply Contamination Public Safety Endangerment
casecontext: Engineer A faced a conflict between her faithful agent duty to comply with Administrator C's directives (including not discussing the matter with city council) and her paramount obligation to protect public safety by reporting the water contamination risk to proper authorities. The Board affirmed that public safety must prevail.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tension with Administrator C Orders
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Highest Engineering Obligation
discoveredincase: 92
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 92
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:49:27.059210+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (City Engineer/Director of Public Works)
obligationclass: Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Resolution Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resolve the conflict between her faithful agent duty to Administrator C and her public safety obligation in favor of public safety as the higher obligation, recognizing that where the conflict is between an important loyalty and the protection of the public, the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation for engineers.
sourcetext: it seems clear that where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of conflict between Administrator C's directives and Engineer A's public safety obligations
textreferences: ethics frequently involves a delicate balance between competing and, often times, conflicting obligations.
textreferences: it seems clear that where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation.
textreferences: the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic.
wasattributedto: Case 92 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:00:16.266158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 92 Extraction