ProEthica Case 94 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755429
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Developer Retention
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Client relationship may create pressure to frame public presentations favorably toward developer interests
foreseen unintended effects: Retention by a private developer may create tension with obligations to public bodies and the general public
fulfills obligation text: Legitimate professional engagement within scope of engineering practice
fulfills obligation text: Providing technical expertise to support a development project through a lawful approval process
guided by principle text: Engineers may be retained by private clients for projects requiring public approval
guided by principle text: Professional competence in accepting assignments within one's area of expertise
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Establish professional engagement to provide engineering services for the waterfront development project
requires capability text: Environmental impact assessment
requires capability text: Knowledge of planning and regulatory approval processes
requires capability text: Public hearing presentation skills
requires capability text: Waterfront development engineering expertise
temporal marker: Pre-hearing; project initiation phase
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A agrees to be retained by Developer F for the major waterfront development project in City X, establishing a client relationship that will frame all subsequent professional obligations and potential conflicts of interest.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Accept Developer Retention (Action 1) → Engineer Retention Established (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A agrees to be retained by Developer F, formally establishing a financial and professional relationship that creates the foundational conflict of interest underlying all subsequent ethical failures
cause: Accept Developer Retention (Action 1)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined the retention or disclosed the financial relationship fully to the Planning Board, the structural conflict of interest would not have existed or would have been neutralized by transparency
effect: Engineer Retention Established (Event 1)
necessary factors: Absence of Engineer A declining or disclosing conflict to the Planning Board
necessary factors: Developer F's offer of engagement for the waterfront project
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision to accept the retainer
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Acceptance of retainer + formal engagement agreement = establishment of retained relationship with all attendant loyalty obligations to Developer F
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Accept Developer Retention → Engineer A Retention Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedent-Selective-Disclosure
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Precedents on Engineer Disclosure Obligations in Public Hearings
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
usedby: Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in evaluating the disclosure obligation
usedincontext: Prior BER cases addressing engineer obligations to volunteer material information in public or quasi-judicial forums provide analogical reasoning for evaluating whether Engineer A's omission of traffic, air, and noise pollution data constitutes an ethical breach
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Board BER 65-9 79-2 Cross-Context Factual Distinction Application
type: BERDual-PrecedentPublicPolicyDebateSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Public Policy Debate Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER possessed the capability to retrieve BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2, identify their factual distinctions from the present case, recognize their instructive value despite those distinctions, and apply the synthesized framework — that engineers may reach different conclusions from the same facts and that environmental issues involve subjective trade-offs — to the present single-engineer disclosure obligation question.
casecontext: Present case analysis using BER 65-9 and 79-2 as instructive precedents
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Using BER 65-9 and 79-2 to establish that environmental considerations are subject to varying arguments and that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions, then applying this framework to Engineer A's disclosure obligations
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here
textreferences: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments
textreferences: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER_Case_63-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 63-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Citing earlier BER Case No. 63-6, the Board noted that 'Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer...'
textreferences: Citing earlier BER Case No. 63-6, the Board noted that 'Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer...'
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (cited within BER Case 65-9 analysis)
usedincontext: Precedent cited within BER Case 65-9 establishing that engineering problems do not always admit of a single correct answer and that equally qualified engineers can honestly differ in their interpretations of the same physical facts
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER_Case_65-9
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 65-9
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: One early example is BER Case No. 65-9.
textreferences: In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route...
textreferences: One early example is BER Case No. 65-9.
textreferences: The Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that an engineer may ethically and publicly criticize highway route cost estimates prepared by state highway department engineers and propose alternative routes, grounding the principle that engineers can reach different conclusions from the same facts
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER_Case_79-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 79-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer...
textreferences: '[t]hat … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.'
textreferences: 'there is no finite answer to the balance or trade-off which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.'
textreferences: Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer...
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent for the present case's environmental disclosure analysis
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that engineers acting on a town council's design request for a sanitary landfill acted ethically, and that a third engineer publicly challenging that design also acted ethically; grounds the principle that environmental and public policy decisions are subject to open public debate and that conflicting professional views between engineers are not ethically problematic
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 63-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 65-9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 65-9 before BER Case No. 79-2
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case... [following discussion of BER Case No. 65-9 from 1965]
from entity text: BER Case No. 65-9
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case No. 79-2
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case No 79-2
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 65-9 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 65-9 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here.
from entity text: BER Case No. 65-9
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present case Engineer A and Developer F waterfron
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 79-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 79-2 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Case No. 79-2 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
from entity text: BER Case No. 79-2
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present case Engineer A and Developer F waterfron
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER_Case_No_63-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 63-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Citing earlier BER Case No. 63-6, the Board noted that 'Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer'
textreferences: Citing earlier BER Case No. 63-6, the Board noted that 'Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer'
textreferences: engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (cited within Case 65-9 analysis)
usedincontext: Cited within BER Case 65-9 to establish the foundational principle that engineering problems do not always admit of a single correct answer, and that equally qualified engineers can reach different conclusions from the same factual basis
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.360159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER_Case_No_65-9
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 65-9
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: One early example is BER Case No. 65-9
textreferences: In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes
textreferences: One early example is BER Case No. 65-9
textreferences: a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass
textreferences: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case involving Engineer A's disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that it is ethical for a consulting engineer to publicly criticize highway route proposals prepared by state highway department engineers and to propose alternative routes; used to ground the principle that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions from the same facts
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.359316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER_Case_No_79-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 79-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B
textreferences: Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent for the present case
usedincontext: Precedent establishing that (1) engineers acting on a town council's design request act ethically even when another engineer publicly challenges their approach, and (2) an engineer acting as a concerned citizen acts ethically in publicly challenging a design on environmental grounds; used to ground the principle that conflicting public views between engineers on environmental matters are not ethically problematic
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.360352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Ethics Review Body Dual-Precedent Synthesis Present Case
type: BERDual-PrecedentPublicPolicyDebateSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Public Policy Debate Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to identify, retrieve, and synthesize BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 to establish the ethical framework governing Engineer A's disclosure obligations at the City Planning Board hearing, applying the synthesized principle that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions from the same facts to the present case's relevance-pertinence disclosure question.
casecontext: Present case — BER's ethical analysis of Engineer A's public hearing disclosure obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's explicit use of Cases 65-9 and 79-2 as instructive precedents for analyzing Engineer A's obligations, identifying the factual distinctions between those cases and the present case, and applying the synthesized framework to reach conclusions about Engineer A's disclosure obligations
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has had occasion to consider earlier cases relating to the role and obligation of engineers testifying before public agencies or making public statements affecting public policy issues.
textreferences: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here.
textreferences: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has had occasion to consider earlier cases relating to the role and obligation of engineers testifying before public agencies or making public statements affecting public policy issues.
textreferences: Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Precedent Cases Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER Precedent Cases Established → Withhold Unprompted Pollution Disclosure (ethical evaluation context)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Board Members Silent On Impacts
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Non_Deception_By_Omission_Constraint
activates constraint: Proactive_Disclosure_Constraint
causes state change: The absence of board questioning does not relieve Engineer A of disclosure duty; the information gap widens and the board proceeds toward deliberation with an incomplete factual record
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Duty_Not_To_Exploit_Board_Silence_As_License_For_Continued_Omission
creates obligation: Heightened_Duty_To_Volunteer_Omitted_Information
emergency status: medium
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: During public hearing, immediately following Engineer A's presentation
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: No members of the City Planning Board specifically question Engineer A about traffic, air, or noise pollution impacts during or after the presentation, leaving the omissions unchallenged from the board's side.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Case 94 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 4
event count: 6
total elements: 10
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Developer Retention
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

CausalLink_Conditionally Commit to Honest
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

CausalLink_Frame Presentation Around Bene
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

CausalLink_Omit Known Negative Impacts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

City Official BER 65-9 Route Critic
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal official (non-engineer)', 'action': 'Public criticism of highway route selection'}
caseinvolvement: A non-engineer city official who publicly criticized proposed highway route B as endangering the city's water supply and harming lake recreation development, and who later endorsed the consulting engineer's proposed route D.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'aligned_with', 'target': 'Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: An official of a city located close to the proposed route publicly criticized the proposed route 'B'
textreferences: An official of a city located close to the proposed route publicly criticized the proposed route 'B'
textreferences: the city official as favoring route 'D,' proposed by the consulting engineer
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.361855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

City Planning Board members questioning Engineer A during Engineer A's public hearing presentation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
from entity text: City Planning Board members questioning Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's public hearing presentation
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s public hearing presentation
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

City Planning Board questioning of Engineer A during Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Comply With Higher-Contour Landfill Redesign
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Comply With Higher-Contour Landfill Redesign → BER Precedent Cases Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not unethical for Engineer X to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 401
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's non-volunteering was not unethical, the Board's reasoning implicitly rests on a contingent institutional assumption — that the multi-witness public hearing process will, as a systemic matter, surface material adverse impacts that a retained engineer chooses not to volunteer. This assumption is structurally fragile. The ethical permissibility of Engineer A's selective presentation was, in the facts of this case, partially validated after the fact by the appearance of other witnesses who raised the traffic, noise, and air pollution concerns. Had those witnesses not appeared, the City Planning Board would have been left with a technically accurate but materially incomplete record. The Board's conclusion therefore should not be read as a general license for retained engineers to rely on the contingent participation of other hearing witnesses to discharge what might otherwise be an independent disclosure obligation. The ethical permissibility of Engineer A's conduct was circumstantially supported by the hearing's actual completeness, not by any principled guarantee that such completeness would occur. This distinction is critical: the Board's ruling is best understood as fact-specific rather than as establishing a categorical rule that retained engineers may always defer adverse impact disclosure to other witnesses in multi-party public hearings.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically leaves unresolved a meaningful tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation owed to Developer F and the Public Welfare Paramount principle embedded in the NSPE Code. The Board appears to treat these obligations as compatible in this case because Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits did not rise to the level of affirmative concealment or artfully misleading presentation. However, this compatibility is not self-evident — it is contingent on a narrow reading of what constitutes a 'material omission' under Code Section III.3.a. Traffic increases, air pollution, and noise pollution are objectively material to a regulatory body evaluating a major commercial waterfront development. A more rigorous application of the materiality standard would recognize that omitting known, quantifiable adverse impacts from a public regulatory presentation — even without explicit misrepresentation — creates an asymmetric informational record that structurally advantages the client's approval interests over the Planning Board's informed decision-making capacity. The Board's ruling is therefore best understood as drawing the ethical line at affirmative deception rather than at material omission, a distinction that, while defensible under a narrow reading of the Code, does not fully resolve the underlying tension between client loyalty and public welfare when an engineer presents selectively before a regulatory body. Engineers in analogous situations should understand that the Board's ruling does not endorse strategic silence as a general advocacy tool — it merely declines to condemn it under the specific facts presented.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion implicitly calibrates Engineer A's disclosure obligation by reference to the relevance-and-pertinence standard — treating the decision of what to volunteer as a matter of professional judgment about what falls within the scope of the retained engineer's assigned presentation. This calibration is analytically coherent when the retained engineer is one of many witnesses in a structured adversarial or multi-party proceeding where the regulatory body has independent investigative capacity and access to competing technical voices. However, the Board does not adequately address the heightened obligation that attaches when an engineer appears before a public regulatory body in a quasi-adjudicative context. In such settings, the City Planning Board is entitled to expect that a licensed professional engineer's presentation, even if advocacy-oriented, will not be structured in a way that instrumentalizes the hearing process by strategically sequencing disclosures to maximize client benefit. The Board's ruling is ethically defensible on its facts, but it would be strengthened — and its precedential scope better defined — by an explicit acknowledgment that the relevance-and-pertinence judgment exercised by a retained engineer in a public regulatory hearing is not purely a client-service determination. It is also a professional responsibility determination, constrained by the engineer's independent obligation to avoid presentations that, taken as a whole, create a materially misleading impression in the mind of the regulatory decision-maker — even if each individual statement made is technically accurate. The virtue ethics dimension of this case, which the Board does not address, further underscores that technical permissibility and professional integrity are not coextensive: an engineer of exemplary character appearing before a public regulatory body would proactively disclose known material adverse impacts, not because the Code compels it in every instan…
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits does not, on the facts as presented, cross the line into an artfully misleading presentation prohibited under Code Section III.3.a, but the margin is narrow and context-dependent. The prohibition on material omissions under III.3.a is triggered when an omission renders what is said affirmatively misleading — that is, when the partial picture conveyed creates a false impression of the whole. Here, Engineer A highlighted the conversion of an industrial waterfront to parkland as an environmental benefit, which is accurate. The adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts are real but are not logically implied to be absent by the benefit-focused framing alone. However, the line would be crossed if Engineer A's presentation were structured in a way that implied a net-positive or impact-free environmental profile — for example, by characterizing the project as environmentally beneficial without qualification in a context where the regulatory body would reasonably infer that no significant adverse environmental impacts exist. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically implicitly depends on the presentation not having created that false inference. If the framing was sufficiently neutral — 'here are the environmental improvements we are delivering' rather than 'this project is environmentally sound overall' — the omission remains permissible. If the framing was holistic and evaluative, the omission becomes materially misleading. The Board did not resolve this factual distinction, which represents a significant gap in its analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A's conditional willingness to answer honestly if directly questioned does not fully satisfy the spirit of the NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness requirements under Section II.3.a, even if it avoids outright violation. The Code's requirement of objectivity and truthfulness in testimony is not merely a prohibition on lying when asked; it reflects a professional standard of candor that is particularly acute in regulatory proceedings where the engineer's technical expertise is the primary basis for the regulatory body's reliance. A strategy of strategic silence — presenting only favorable information while reserving adverse information for the contingency of a direct question — instrumentalizes the public hearing process in a way that is inconsistent with the spirit of objectivity. The City Planning Board is not positioned to ask about impacts it does not know to ask about; the engineer's superior technical knowledge creates an informational asymmetry that the Code's objectivity requirement is designed to correct, not to exploit. While the Board concluded that non-volunteering was not unethical, this conclusion is best understood as establishing a minimum compliance threshold, not as endorsing strategic silence as a model of professional conduct. The spirit of the Code demands more: an engineer appearing before a regulatory body should structure testimony to enable informed decision-making, not to optimize for client approval while technically avoiding falsehood.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The Board did not consider, and should have, whether Engineer A's appearance before a public regulatory body creates an independent disclosure obligation that is analytically separate from, and potentially superior to, the faithful agent obligation owed to Developer F. When an engineer testifies before a governmental regulatory body — as opposed to advising a private client — the engineer is participating in a public process whose legitimacy depends on the technical record being sufficiently complete for the regulatory body to exercise its statutory mandate. This public-process participation role generates a disclosure obligation grounded not in client service but in the engineer's relationship to the public welfare under Code Section II.3.a and the broader paramount obligation to public safety, health, and welfare. The faithful agent obligation under Section II.4 governs the engineer's conduct in serving the client's interests in private contexts; it does not authorize the engineer to use a public regulatory hearing as a vehicle for one-sided advocacy that withholds material technical information from the body charged with protecting the public. The Board's failure to distinguish between these two relational contexts — private client service and public regulatory testimony — represents a structural gap in its analysis that, if corrected, would likely produce a more demanding disclosure standard for engineers appearing in regulatory proceedings.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 401
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104 and Q401: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically is materially dependent on the contingent fact that other witnesses subsequently testified about the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts. The Board's reasoning implicitly invokes the Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness principle — the idea that a public hearing process, taken as a whole, will surface material information even if individual witnesses present selectively. But this rationale is structurally fragile: it conditions the ethical permissibility of Engineer A's omission on the behavior of third parties whose participation Engineer A neither controlled nor could guarantee. Had no other witnesses appeared to raise the adverse impacts, the City Planning Board would have made its regulatory decision on an incomplete technical record, and Engineer A's selective presentation would have been the proximate cause of that informational deficit. The ethical permissibility of an omission cannot logically depend on whether someone else happens to correct it. A more defensible formulation of the Board's conclusion would hold that Engineer A's conduct was minimally compliant given the specific facts — including subsequent witness testimony — but that the same conduct would have been ethically deficient in the counterfactual scenario where no other witnesses appeared. This distinction is critical for establishing a principled disclosure standard that does not make ethical compliance contingent on institutional luck.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201 and Q204: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation under Section II.4 and the Public Welfare Paramount principle under Section II.3.a is real but not irresolvable in the present case — though the Board's resolution of it is underspecified. The faithful agent obligation authorizes Engineer A to present the project in its best light, to emphasize genuine benefits, and to structure testimony around the client's approval objectives. It does not, however, authorize Engineer A to suppress material technical information that a regulatory body needs to fulfill its public protection mandate. The resolution of this tension requires recognizing that the two obligations operate at different levels: the faithful agent obligation governs the scope and framing of advocacy, while the public welfare obligation sets a floor below which advocacy cannot descend regardless of client interest. That floor is defined by the prohibition on artfully misleading presentations under Section III.3.a and the objectivity requirement under Section II.3.a. On the present facts, Engineer A's conduct remained above that floor — barely — because the presentation was accurate as far as it went and other witnesses supplied the missing information. But the structural incentive created by retained-engineer advocacy in regulatory proceedings — where the engineer is financially dependent on the client whose project requires regulatory approval — creates a systematic pressure toward the floor that the Board's permissive conclusion does not adequately address.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q301 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, the duty of truthfulness under Section II.3.a is not fully discharged by a mere commitment to answer honestly if questioned. Kantian deontology requires that the maxim underlying one's conduct be universalizable: if every retained engineer appearing before a regulatory body adopted the maxim 'I will present only favorable information and disclose adverse impacts only if directly asked,' the regulatory hearing process would be systematically degraded as an institution for informed public decision-making, because regulatory bodies cannot reliably ask about impacts they do not know to ask about. The universalizability test therefore condemns strategic silence as a professional norm, even if individual instances of it do not produce identifiable harm. Furthermore, the duty of non-deception in deontological ethics extends beyond literal falsehood to include the creation of false impressions through selective emphasis — which is precisely what Section III.3.a's prohibition on material omissions captures. The Board's conclusion is more consistent with a rule-consequentialist or institutional-process framework than with strict deontological analysis. A deontological reading of the Code would require Engineer A to disclose all material facts known to the engineer that are relevant to the regulatory body's decision, regardless of whether those facts were solicited, because the duty of truthfulness in testimony is owed to the integrity of the process, not merely to the questioner.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the multi-witness public hearing process did, on the specific facts presented, produce sufficiently complete information for the City Planning Board to make an informed decision — but this outcome was contingent rather than structurally guaranteed, and the consequentialist analysis therefore cannot provide a stable justification for the Board's conclusion as a general rule. The consequentialist case for Engineer A's conduct rests entirely on the ex post fact that other witnesses appeared and supplied the missing information. Had they not appeared, the consequentialist calculus would reverse: Engineer A's selective presentation would have produced a materially incomplete technical record, potentially leading to regulatory approval of a project whose adverse impacts were not weighed against its benefits, causing identifiable harm to the surrounding community through increased traffic, air pollution, and noise. A consequentialist ethics of professional conduct cannot be built on the assumption that informational gaps will always be filled by third parties. The more defensible consequentialist position is that engineers appearing before regulatory bodies should adopt a proactive disclosure norm precisely because the consequences of strategic silence — when not corrected by other witnesses — are significantly harmful to public welfare, and because a general norm of proactive disclosure produces better aggregate outcomes than a norm of conditional disclosure even accounting for the costs to client advocacy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's conduct falls short of the standard of professional integrity and intellectual honesty that a competent engineer appearing before a public regulatory body should exemplify, even if it is technically permissible under the Board's ruling. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not by whether it satisfies minimum compliance thresholds but by whether it reflects the character traits — honesty, candor, civic responsibility, intellectual courage — that define the excellent professional. An engineer of excellent character, appearing before a regulatory body to present a project that will affect the public, would recognize that the regulatory body's ability to protect the public depends on receiving a complete technical picture, and would provide that picture even at the cost of some advocacy effectiveness for the client. The choice to remain silent on known adverse impacts — even while technically avoiding falsehood — reflects a character orientation toward client service and approval optimization rather than toward the public welfare that the engineering profession is ultimately chartered to serve. The Board's conclusion establishes what an engineer may do without ethical indictment; virtue ethics asks what an engineer of good character would do. Those are different questions, and the answer to the second is that Engineer A should have volunteered the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts as part of a complete and candid presentation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If the City Planning Board had approved the waterfront development project solely on the basis of Engineer A's benefit-focused presentation — before other witnesses testified about adverse impacts — and the project subsequently caused significant traffic congestion and air and noise pollution harm to the surrounding community, Engineer A would bear meaningful professional ethical responsibility for those harms under the NSPE Code, and the Board's conclusion would very likely have been different. The causal chain from Engineer A's selective presentation to the regulatory approval to the community harm would be direct and traceable: the City Planning Board, relying on the only technical testimony before it, would have made its decision without the information necessary to weigh the project's costs against its benefits. Under Section II.3.a, Engineer A's testimony would have failed the objectivity standard by creating a materially incomplete technical record. Under Section III.3.a, the omission of known adverse impacts in a context where no other witnesses supplied them would constitute a material omission that rendered the presentation misleading in effect. The Board's conclusion in the actual case is therefore best understood as contingent on the subsequent witness testimony that corrected the informational deficit — a contingency that, had it not materialized, would have transformed Engineer A's technically permissible omission into an ethically culpable one.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Engineer A had proactively volunteered the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts during the initial presentation without being asked, Developer F would not have had a valid claim of breach of the faithful agent obligation under Section II.4, and the Board should have made this point explicit. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to serve Developer F's legitimate interests — which include obtaining regulatory approval through a lawful and credible process — but it does not authorize Engineer A to suppress material technical information in a public regulatory proceeding. Proactive disclosure of adverse impacts, presented alongside the genuine environmental benefits, would have served Developer F's long-term interests by demonstrating the engineer's and the developer's good faith to the regulatory body, potentially increasing the credibility and persuasiveness of the overall presentation. More fundamentally, the faithful agent obligation is bounded by the engineer's overriding duties to the public welfare and to professional integrity: Section II.4 explicitly states that faithful agency is subject to the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety, health, and welfare. An instruction from Developer F to suppress known adverse impacts — if such an instruction had been given — would itself have been an instruction to violate the Code, which Engineer A would have been obligated to refuse. Proactive disclosure is therefore not a breach of faithful agency; it is a fulfillment of the engineer's complete professional obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.153939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had been retained directly by the City Planning Board as an independent technical advisor rather than as Developer F's consulting engineer, the ethical obligation to proactively disclose the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts would have been categorically and unambiguously different — and this distinction reveals a fundamental structural problem with the Board's analysis. An engineer retained by the regulatory body itself owes undivided loyalty to that body's decision-making function, which requires complete and balanced technical information. There would be no faithful agent tension, no advocacy-objectivity balance to strike, and no permissible basis for selective emphasis. The engineer would be obligated to present all material impacts — beneficial and adverse — as a matter of basic professional duty. The fact that the same engineer, presenting the same technical information about the same project, would have categorically different disclosure obligations depending solely on who is paying the retainer reveals that the Board's analysis is implicitly treating the source of retention as a determinative factor in defining the scope of public disclosure duty. This is a problematic conclusion: the public regulatory body's need for complete technical information does not change based on who retained the engineer. What changes is the engineer's financial relationship and advocacy role — factors that should not be permitted to systematically reduce the quality of technical information available to regulatory bodies charged with protecting the public interest.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle not by subordinating one to the other categorically, but by drawing a contextual boundary: a retained engineer's selective emphasis on client-favorable facts is permissible so long as it does not cross into affirmative concealment or artfully misleading presentation. In this case, the Board treated Engineer A's silence on adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts as falling within the permissible zone of advocacy-constrained presentation, rather than as a prohibited material omission, because Engineer A neither actively suppressed the information nor structured the presentation to prevent its emergence. The resolution implicitly treats the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle as operating on different registers: client loyalty governs what an engineer chooses to emphasize, while public welfare governs what an engineer is categorically prohibited from concealing. This case teaches that the two principles are not in direct collision so long as the engineer maintains a conditional commitment to honest disclosure if questioned — but this resolution is structurally fragile, because it depends on the regulatory body asking the right questions and other witnesses volunteering the omitted material facts, neither of which is guaranteed.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard, as applied by the Board to justify Engineer A's non-volunteering of adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts, is in unresolved tension with the Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation owed to the City Planning Board. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats relevance as a judgment call reserved to the retained engineer, allowing Engineer A to determine unilaterally that the adverse impacts fell outside the scope of what needed to be volunteered. However, from the perspective of the regulatory body, traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution are objectively material to any evaluation of a major commercial waterfront development — they are not peripheral or speculative concerns. The Board's resolution of this tension is therefore asymmetric: it defers to the engineer's subjective relevance judgment when that judgment favors the client's presentation interests, while simultaneously relying on the multi-witness hearing process to supply the informational completeness that the engineer's relevance judgment withheld. This case teaches that the Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard cannot function as an ethically neutral filter when the engineer applying it has a structural incentive — arising from the Faithful Agent Obligation — to define relevance in ways that systematically exclude client-adverse material facts. The standard requires an independent, objective application that the retained-engineer context structurally undermines.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Board's reliance on the Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness principle to justify Engineer A's non-volunteering of adverse impacts reveals a deeper principle tension that the Board left unresolved: an engineer cannot ethically delegate the disclosure of known material facts to the contingent participation of other witnesses whose appearance is not guaranteed. The Board's conclusion is implicitly conditional on the factual circumstance that other engineers and witnesses did subsequently testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution concerns, thereby completing the informational record before the City Planning Board. This means the Board's ethical clearance of Engineer A is retrospectively justified by an outcome — the appearance of other witnesses — that Engineer A had no control over and no basis to rely upon at the time of the presentation. This case therefore teaches a critical principle prioritization lesson: the Objectivity Principle and the Transparency Principle cannot be satisfied by institutional processes that are external to and independent of the engineer's own conduct. When an engineer knows material adverse facts and chooses not to volunteer them, the ethical adequacy of that choice cannot be made to depend on whether other actors happen to supply the missing information. The Board's resolution is pragmatically defensible on the specific facts of this case but is ethically unstable as a general rule, because it would permit retained engineers to systematically omit adverse impacts whenever a multi-witness hearing format is available, regardless of whether those witnesses actually appear or testify completely.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conditionally Commit to Honest Answers
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: The Board, not knowing what questions to ask, may never trigger the disclosure Engineer A is prepared to make
foreseen unintended effects: The conditional commitment provides Engineer A with a subjective ethical justification for non-disclosure that may not satisfy objective professional standards
fulfills obligation text: Did not prepare or intend to give false answers
fulfills obligation text: Maintained commitment to truthful testimony if directly questioned
guided by principle text: A public body's inability to ask the right question does not relieve the engineer of the obligation to supply material technical information
guided by principle text: Honesty in engineering testimony encompasses both reactive truthfulness and proactive completeness
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Preserve personal ethical integrity by committing to truthful answers if asked, while avoiding proactive disclosure that could harm the client's approval prospects
requires capability text: Professional judgment about disclosure obligations
requires capability text: Public hearing testimony ethics
requires capability text: Technical knowledge of project impacts
temporal marker: During public hearing Q&A phase
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure the public body has the information needed to make sound decisions, not merely to answer questions honestly when asked
violates obligation text: Obligation to proactively disclose relevant and pertinent information to a public body
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A internally resolves that, if directly questioned by the City Planning Board about traffic, air, or noise pollution impacts, honest and complete testimony would be provided, but does not translate this conditional commitment into proactive disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Conditionally Commit to Honest Answers Action 4 → Information Gap In Record Event 5 - via non-disclosure when Board is silent
type: CausalChain
causal language: Engineer A internally resolves that only if directly questioned will honest answers about impacts be provided; because Board members do not ask (Event 3), this conditional standard ensures that Engineer A's knowledge of negative impacts is never disclosed, directly producing the information gap in the record
cause: Conditionally Commit to Honest Answers (Action 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A adopted an unconditional proactive disclosure standard, consistent with engineering ethics obligations to the public, the Board's silence would have been irrelevant and the information gap would not have formed
effect: Information Gap In Record (Event 5), via non-disclosure when Board is silent
necessary factors: Board members' failure to ask direct questions about impacts (Event 3)
necessary factors: Engineer A's adoption of a conditional rather than proactive honesty standard
necessary factors: Engineer A's possession of material knowledge that would otherwise require disclosure under a proactive standard
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Conditional honesty standard + Board silence = sufficient to guarantee non-disclosure of known material negative impacts, regardless of Engineer A's underlying knowledge
within agent control: true

Conditionally Commit to Honest Answers (Action 4) → Information Gap In Record (Event 5) — via non-disclosure when Board is silent
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Prohibition
type: HonestCostEstimateDisagreementPublicExpressionNon-ProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A consulting engineer publicly criticized the state highway department's preferred route B and proposed alternative route D, disagreeing with the department's cost estimates; the Board found this ethically permissible
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Consulting Firm Principal (BER Case 65-9)
constraintclass: Honest Cost Estimate Disagreement Public Expression Non-Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: The consulting firm principal was not ethically prohibited from publicly disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing an alternative route D, provided the disagreement was grounded in honest professional judgment — the constraint established that public cost estimate disagreement is not objectionable in itself.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 65-9; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
temporalscope: At the time of publication of the public letter 'To Whom Concerned' in the local press
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Public Disagreement
type: EngineeringCostEstimatePublicDisagreementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Cost Estimate Public Disagreement Capability
capabilitystatement: The consulting firm principal possessed the capability to publicly express a reasoned professional disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and to propose an alternative route, without violating professional ethics obligations.
casecontext: BER Case 65-9 — interstate highway bypass route selection controversy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Publishing a public letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing route D as superior to the department's favored route B
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Consulting Firm Principal (BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Public Letter Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A consulting engineer publicly criticized proposed highway route B's cost estimates and proposed alternative route D in a letter published in local press. The ethical permissibility of this action depended on the criticism being grounded in established facts and professional analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER Case 65-9)
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: The consulting firm principal was constrained to ground his public letter criticizing the state highway department's route selection and cost estimates in established facts and completed analysis, prohibiting expression of unverified concerns as established professional findings.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 65-9
sourcetext: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
temporalscope: At the time of publication of the public letter 'To Whom Concerned'
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.769948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Honest Differences of Opinion Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerConflictingProfessionalViewEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The consulting firm principal demonstrated the capability to recognize that his professional disagreement with the highway department engineers' cost estimates and route selection represented an honest difference of professional opinion among equally qualified engineers, not an ethical violation.
casecontext: BER Case 65-9 — consulting engineer's public criticism of state highway department route selection
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Public expression of disagreement grounded in professional judgment about route alternatives, without impermissible disparagement of the highway department engineers
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Consulting Firm Principal Highway Route Critic BER 65-9
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.770781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Public Letter Highway Route Criticism
type: EngineeringCostEstimatePublicDisagreementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Cost Estimate Public Disagreement Capability
capabilitystatement: The consulting firm principal possessed the capability to publicly express, through a published letter, professional disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and to propose an alternative route, doing so in a manner that was ethically permissible as an honest difference of professional opinion.
casecontext: BER Case 65-9 — consulting engineer publicly criticized state highway department's preferred bypass route and proposed alternative
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Issuance of a public letter 'To Whom Concerned' published in local press, disagreeing with highway department cost estimates, pointing out disadvantages of proposed route B, and suggesting a superior fourth route D
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Consulting Firm Principal Highway Route Critic BER 65-9
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect, issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes.
textreferences: A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect, issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes.
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route.
textreferences: In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.770642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerConflictingProfessionalViewEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The consulting firm principal possessed the capability to recognize that his honest professional disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendations was ethically permissible, reflecting legitimate differences of professional opinion rather than ethical misconduct.
casecontext: BER Case 65-9 — public criticism of state highway department route recommendations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Publicly issuing a letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing alternative route D, grounded in genuine professional judgment
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Consulting Firm Principal (BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.375854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A structure the presentation to emphasize only the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion, omit known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts without affirmative misrepresentation, or proactively disclose all known material impacts in a balanced presentation?
focus: Before presenting to the City Planning Board, Engineer A must decide how to structure the overall presentation on behalf of Developer F. Engineer A knows the waterfront development will convert industrial land to parkland (a genuine environmental benefit) but also knows it will generate significant increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution. The framing decision determines whether the presentation constitutes permissible selective advocacy or crosses into affirmatively misleading the Board.
option1: Structure the presentation to highlight the conversion of industrial waterfront to parkland and other environmental benefits consistent with Developer F's interests, without proactively raising traffic, noise, or air pollution impacts, while relying on the multi-witness hearing process and other independent engineers to supply that adverse information — provided the presentation does not affirmatively misrepresent or conceal those impacts.
option2: Present a fully balanced account of the project's public welfare effects, volunteering the anticipated increases in traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution alongside the environmental benefits, thereby satisfying the most demanding interpretation of the NSPE Code's objectivity and public welfare obligations regardless of whether other witnesses would cover those impacts.
option3: Structure the presentation in a technically accurate but strategically deceptive manner — for example, by framing environmental benefits in ways that implicitly suggest no significant adverse impacts exist — crossing from permissible selective emphasis into affirmative suppression or misrepresentation of known public welfare harms.
role label: Engineer A — Retained Engineer Presenting Developer F's Project at City Planning Board Hearing
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively volunteer the known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts to the City Planning Board during testimony, or permissibly remain silent on those impacts while relying on the multi-witness hearing structure and other independent engineers to supply that information?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to proactively volunteer the known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development during testimony, even though no Board member has yet asked about them. This decision sits at the ethical fault line identified in CausalLink_Omit Known Negative Impacts: omission is conditionally permissible under the multi-witness institutional reliance and relevance-pertinence principles, but becomes a violation if it crosses into affirmative concealment or artfully misleading presentation.
option1: Affirmatively disclose to the City Planning Board the anticipated increases in traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution during the presentation, treating these as 'relevant and pertinent information' under the engineer's objective professional judgment, thereby satisfying the most demanding interpretation of the NSPE Code's public welfare and objectivity obligations independent of whether other witnesses appear.
option2: Decline to volunteer traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts during the presentation, exercising professional judgment that these are either not 'relevant and pertinent' to Engineer A's specific scope of testimony or are adequately addressed by the institutional completeness mechanism of the multi-witness hearing — provided the silence does not constitute affirmative concealment and Engineer A answers all direct questions honestly.
option3: Before the hearing, conduct a good-faith, client-interest-neutral professional assessment of whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts meet the 'relevant and pertinent' threshold for Engineer A's testimony, and volunteer only those impacts that the objective assessment identifies as relevant — neither suppressing clearly material information nor volunteering information genuinely outside the scope of the engineer's role.
role label: Engineer A — Licensed Professional Engineer Testifying Before City Planning Board
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: When directly questioned by the City Planning Board about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, should Engineer A provide complete and honest answers, and does the posture of answering only when asked satisfy the NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness obligations or create an ethically problematic strategic silence?
focus: During or after Engineer A's presentation, City Planning Board members may pose direct questions about the adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the development. Engineer A has stated a willingness to answer honestly if directly questioned. This decision point concerns whether that conditional commitment — answering only when asked — satisfies the spirit of the NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness requirements, or whether it constitutes a strategic silence that falls short of the engineer's public testimony obligations.
option1: When Board members pose direct questions about traffic congestion, noise pollution, or air pollution impacts, provide full, accurate, and non-evasive answers that reflect Engineer A's complete professional knowledge of those impacts — satisfying the direct-question complete-answer obligation and the NSPE Code conformance requirement for public testimony.
option2: Volunteer no adverse impact information proactively and, when directly questioned, provide technically accurate but narrowly scoped answers that satisfy the literal question without volunteering additional material context — a posture that may satisfy the letter of the direct-question obligation while falling short of the spirit of the NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness requirements.
option3: Without waiting to be asked, affirmatively supplement the benefits-focused presentation with a disclosure of known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — treating the public regulatory hearing context as imposing a heightened independent disclosure obligation separate from the faithful agent role owed to Developer F, consistent with the engineer's public welfare paramount duty.
role label: Engineer A — Licensed Professional Engineer Under Direct Examination by City Planning Board
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A's disclosure decision be conditioned on the contingent presence of other witnesses who may supply adverse impact information, or should Engineer A treat the disclosure obligation as independent of whether other witnesses appear — particularly given that the Board's ethical conclusion would change if those witnesses had not testified?
focus: The ethical soundness of Engineer A's non-volunteering posture is contingent on the institutional assumption that other independent witnesses will appear and testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically is materially dependent on this contingent fact. Engineer A must consider, at the time of deciding how to present, whether reliance on the multi-witness process is ethically justified when there is no guarantee that other witnesses will appear or adequately cover the adverse impacts.
option1: Proceed with the benefits-focused presentation without volunteering adverse impacts, treating the adversarial multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing as a sufficient institutional mechanism to supply complete information to the Board — accepting that this reliance is ethically permissible only so long as Engineer A does not affirmatively suppress information and answers all direct questions honestly.
option2: Treat the disclosure obligation as independent of whether other witnesses appear, and proactively volunteer the known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts during Engineer A's own testimony — recognizing that the ethical permissibility of non-volunteering is contingent on institutional completeness that cannot be guaranteed in advance, and that the public welfare paramount obligation does not diminish based on the anticipated actions of third parties.
option3: Before the hearing, ascertain whether independent engineers or other witnesses are confirmed to testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; if confirmed, rely on the multi-witness process and omit proactive disclosure; if not confirmed, treat the absence of other witnesses as eliminating the institutional completeness justification and volunteer the adverse impacts during Engineer A's own testimony.
role label: Engineer A — Retained Engineer Deciding Disclosure Posture in Advance of Multi-Witness Public Hearing
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Developer F Developer Client
type: DeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'project_type': 'Major waterfront development — industrial-to-parkland/commercial conversion', 'location': 'City X'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A to design and present the City X waterfront development project. Developer F's commercial development is the subject of the public hearing approval process.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_approval', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Developer Client
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
textreferences: the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Developer F retaining Engineer A before public hearing before City Planning Board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer-Selective-Disclosure-Standard
type: EngineerSelectiveDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
usedby: Engineer A during public hearing presentation to City Planning Board
usedincontext: Directly governs whether Engineer A was ethically obligated to volunteer known negative impacts (traffic, air, noise pollution) at the public hearing without being specifically questioned, and whether truthful but incomplete testimony satisfies professional obligations
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.758895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure
type: PublicHearingAdverseImpactRelevance-ConditionedVoluntaryDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly determine whether the adverse impacts of the waterfront development — traffic, noise, and air pollution — were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to calibrate his voluntary disclosure obligations accordingly.
casecontext: Waterfront development public hearing before City Planning Board
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Assessing whether to volunteer adverse impact information based on relevance and pertinence to the specific proceeding, recognizing that if relevant and pertinent, disclosure is obligatory
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.375086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Avoidance Waterfront Development
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize when a technically accurate but selectively framed presentation of the waterfront development's environmental benefits would create a materially misleading impression about the project's overall public welfare impact, and to refrain from such artfully misleading presentations.
casecontext: Public hearing presentation of waterfront development before City Planning Board
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Ensuring that selective emphasis on environmental benefits (industrial waterfront to parkland conversion) did not cross into artful misrepresentation that created a false impression about overall project impacts
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Development Hearing
textreferences: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Development Hearing
textreferences: Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.375378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Hearing
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize when a technically accurate presentation — highlighting only environmental benefits while omitting known adverse impacts — could cross the line into an artfully misleading statement that creates a false impression in the City Planning Board's mind, and to structure the presentation to avoid such misrepresentation.
casecontext: Public hearing presentation on waterfront development; selective emphasis on environmental benefits while known adverse impacts exist
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's presentation highlighted environmental benefits without structuring the presentation to affirmatively conceal or create a false impression about the project's overall public welfare impact, remaining within the permissible range of selective emphasis.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.369184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary BER Present Case
type: Client-FavorableSelectiveEmphasisAffirmativeConcealmentBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A highlighted the environmental improvement (industrial to parkland) while not volunteering adverse impacts. The ethical boundary between permissible selective emphasis and impermissible concealment is the central analytical question of the case.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to ensure that the selective emphasis on the environmental benefit of the industrial-to-parkland conversion did not cross into affirmative concealment or artful misleading of the City X Planning Board — the presentation of positive environmental impacts was permissible as client-favorable selective emphasis, but would have been impermissible had it been structured to prevent the Planning Board from learning about the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Sections II.3.a (objectivity and truthfulness) and III.2.b (faithful agent duty)
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's presentation to the City X Planning Board
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Non-Concealment
type: Client-RetainedPresenterPublicWelfareImpactNon-ConcealmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and maintain the boundary between permissible client-favorable selective emphasis on environmental benefits and impermissible affirmative concealment of the waterfront development's public welfare impacts.
casecontext: Developer F waterfront development presentation at City Planning Board
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Ensuring that the presentation of environmental benefits did not cross into structuring the presentation to affirmatively create a false impression about the project's overall public welfare impact
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
textreferences: Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
textreferences: Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Permissibility Boundary Developer F Hearing
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.375692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Environmental Infrastructure Goods Non-Distortion Waterfront Presentation
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The waterfront development presented a genuine tension between environmental improvement (industrial-to-parkland conversion) and adverse commercial-use impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution); Engineer A's selective emphasis on benefits without volunteering adverse impacts implicated this constraint.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from distorting, suppressing, or selectively omitting findings in a manner that misrepresented the genuine tension between the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion and the adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the anticipated commercial development — requiring that if the competing public goods tension was material and pertinent, it be presented honestly rather than one-sidedly.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case No. 79-2 on competing environmental and infrastructure goods
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.368385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Environmental Benefit vs Traffic Noise Pollution BER Present Case
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The waterfront development presented a genuine tension between two public goods: environmental improvement (industrial-to-parkland conversion) and public welfare (traffic, noise, air pollution impacts). Engineer A's presentation emphasized the former without volunteering the latter.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained not to distort the competing public goods tension between the environmental benefit of converting an industrial waterfront to parkland and the public welfare costs of increased traffic, noise, and air pollution — while selective emphasis on the environmental benefit was permissible as a faithful agent, Engineer A could not structure the presentation to suppress or obscure the adverse public welfare impacts in a manner that distorted the Planning Board's ability to weigh these competing public goods.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5 precedent on competing public goods
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's presentation and throughout the public hearing process
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Environmental Benefit vs Traffic Noise Pollution Recognition Waterfront
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A recognized the genuine conflict between two competing public goods: the environmental benefit of converting an industrial waterfront to parkland, and the public welfare costs of increased traffic, noise, and air pollution from the commercial development
casecontext: Waterfront development project converting industrial facility to parkland with commercial development components; public hearing before City Planning Board
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Awareness of both the environmental improvement and the adverse traffic/noise/pollution impacts, even while choosing to emphasize the former in the client-favorable presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.763742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Environmental Improvement vs Traffic Noise Pollution Balanced Disclosure City X
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's presentation emphasized the environmental improvement of converting industrial land to parkland while not volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The competing public goods tension between environmental improvement and traffic/pollution impacts required balanced treatment when both were relevant and pertinent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from distorting, suppressing, or selectively omitting findings that favor one public good (traffic/noise/air pollution reduction) over another (environmental improvement from industrial-to-parkland conversion) in a manner that created a misleading impression before the City X Planning Board — requiring honest and complete presentation of the genuine conflict between competing public goods when both were relevant and pertinent.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case precedent on competing public goods
sourcetext: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
temporalscope: During the City X Planning Board hearing presentation
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
textreferences: many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
type: PublicHearingConditionalHonestAnswerReadinessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's permissible selective non-volunteering of adverse impacts was conditioned on unconditional readiness to answer truthfully if directly questioned by the Planning Board
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having not volunteered traffic, noise, and air pollution impact information in the initial presentation, was constrained to be fully prepared and committed to providing complete, honest, and accurate testimony on those impacts if directly questioned by the City Planning Board — prohibiting deflection or incomplete answers upon direct inquiry.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception and objectivity provisions
sourcetext: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
temporalscope: Throughout the City Planning Board hearing, particularly during the question-and-answer phase
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Traffic Noise Pollution Planning Board
type: PublicHearingConditionalHonestAnswerReadinessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A stated that had the City Planning Board specifically questioned Engineer A on traffic, noise, and air pollution factors, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues — satisfying the conditional honest answer readiness constraint.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having chosen not to volunteer adverse impact information in the initial presentation, was absolutely constrained to provide complete, honest, and accurate testimony on traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if directly questioned by the City Planning Board — prohibiting withholding, deflection, or incomplete answers on matters within Engineer A's knowledge.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER Case precedent on selective testimony
sourcetext: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
temporalscope: Throughout the City Planning Board public hearing, including the question-and-answer phase
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.368239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer City Planning Board
type: PublicHearingDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely, honestly, and without evasion, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, regardless of client-favorable presentation strategy.
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to answer direct questions from City Planning Board completely and honestly even when not volunteering adverse impact information proactively
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board Hearing
textreferences: Engineer A Conditional Disclosure Willingness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board Hearing
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.375232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board
type: PublicHearingDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely, honestly, and without evasion — including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — recognizing that this obligation is unconditional and cannot be subordinated to client-favorable presentation strategy.
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing; Engineer A responds to questions from Board members
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's stated willingness to provide complete testimony on traffic, noise, and air pollution issues had the City Planning Board directly questioned Engineer A on those factors.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.369034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Obligation City X Planning Board
type: PublicHearingConditionalHonestAnswerReadinessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's selective non-volunteering of adverse impact information was permissible only when paired with unconditional readiness to answer truthfully upon direct inquiry from the Planning Board.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to be fully prepared and committed to providing complete, honest, and accurate testimony on traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if directly questioned by the City X Planning Board, even if those impacts were not volunteered in the initial presentation.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception and objectivity provisions
sourcetext: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: Throughout the City X Planning Board hearing
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.769800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Readiness Traffic Noise Air Pollution
type: PublicHearingDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability and commitment to answer direct questions from the City Planning Board completely and honestly, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, even though those answers might be adverse to Developer F's interests
casecontext: Public hearing before City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront development project; Engineer A retained by Developer F as presenting engineer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's stated disposition to provide complete testimony on traffic, noise, and air pollution issues if directly questioned by the City Planning Board
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.763423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Honest Answer Commitment Traffic Noise Air Pollution BER Present Case
type: PublicHearingConditionalHonestAnswerReadinessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A did not volunteer adverse impact information but explicitly would have provided complete testimony if directly questioned — this conditional readiness is the ethical foundation that makes the selective non-volunteering permissible rather than deceptive.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to be fully prepared and committed to providing complete, honest, and accurate testimony about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if directly questioned by the City X Planning Board — the ethical permissibility of Engineer A's non-volunteering rested entirely on this unconditional readiness to answer truthfully upon direct inquiry.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, non-deception and objectivity provisions
sourcetext: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
temporalscope: Throughout the public hearing before the City X Planning Board
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation Scope
type: FaithfulAgentDisclosureScopeLimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Developer F and presented the project in a manner favorable to the client, highlighting environmental benefits without volunteering adverse commercial-use impacts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty as faithful agent and trustee for Developer F constrained the scope of voluntary disclosures at the City Planning Board hearing — permitting Engineer A to present the project in a client-favorable manner and to refrain from volunteering adverse impacts not directly relevant and pertinent to the hearing's purpose, without this selective presentation constituting a breach of the engineer's broader professional obligations, provided the presentation did not cross into affirmative deception.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III — faithful agent and trustee duty; BER Case precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement with Developer F and the public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.368714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Disclosure Scope Limitation BER Present Case
type: FaithfulAgentDisclosureScopeLimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Developer F and acted as faithful agent in presenting the waterfront development. The faithful agent relationship defines the permissible scope of selective emphasis and the limits of required disclosure in a public regulatory forum.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to Developer F constrained the scope of required disclosure at the public hearing — the faithful agent relationship permitted Engineer A to present the project in a client-favorable light and to refrain from volunteering adverse impacts not directly relevant to the hearing's specific purpose, without this selective presentation constituting a breach of the engineer's broader ethical obligations, provided the presentation did not affirmatively deceive the Planning Board.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, faithful agent provisions; BER Case precedent on engineer as faithful agent
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's engagement with Developer F and the public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Self-Assessment Waterfront Development
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingPresenterFaithfulAgentSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A assessed that highlighting the environmental benefit of industrial-to-parkland conversion while not volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts fell within the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis, given that other witnesses would address those issues and the Board could directly question Engineer A
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development; Engineer A retained by Developer F; other engineers independently testified about adverse impacts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Structuring the presentation to emphasize environmental improvements without affirmatively concealing or misrepresenting the adverse traffic and pollution impacts; remaining available to answer direct questions truthfully
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.763600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Waterfront Hearing
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingPresenterFaithfulAgentSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to assess the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis at the City Planning Board hearing, correctly recognizing that highlighting environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts fell within the permissible range of faithful agent advocacy, provided the presentation did not cross into affirmative concealment or artful misrepresentation.
casecontext: Public hearing before City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront development project in City X
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A highlighted the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to parkland without volunteering known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts that were not directly questioned, while remaining willing to disclose those impacts if directly questioned.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.368871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Engineer Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Planning Board Hearing
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A presented environmental benefits selectively; other engineers subsequently testified on adverse impacts; the divergence between presentations reflects legitimate inter-engineer professional judgment rather than ethical violation by either party.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A and other engineers testifying at the City Planning Board hearing
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that other engineers at the City Planning Board hearing testified about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts that Engineer A did not volunteer does not render Engineer A's selective presentation inherently unethical, nor does Engineer A's client-favorable framing render the other engineers' adverse-impact testimony unethical — both positions reflect legitimate professional judgment within the recognized space of honest engineering disagreement in public policy contexts.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
temporalscope: During and after the City Planning Board public hearing
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.368553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering
type: Multi-WitnessHearingInstitutionalProcessRelianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Process Reliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly recognize that the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing — with other independent engineers testifying on traffic, noise, and air pollution — legitimately permitted him to refrain from volunteering those adverse impacts, while recognizing the limits of this reliance.
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing with multiple independent witnesses
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Relying on the institutional structure of the hearing where other engineers independently testified on adverse impacts not covered by Engineer A's presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Developer F Waterfront
textreferences: Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Developer F Waterfront
textreferences: Engineer A was permitted to rely on the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.375539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Waterfront
type: Multi-WitnessHearingInstitutionalProcessRelianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Process Reliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly recognize that the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing — in which other engineers independently testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — provided a legitimate institutional basis for not volunteering those adverse impacts during Engineer A's own presentation, while recognizing the limits of this reliance.
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing with multiple independent witnesses including other engineers testifying on different aspects of the waterfront development
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A did not volunteer adverse impact information during the presentation, and the multi-witness hearing structure ensured those impacts were addressed by other independent witnesses, fulfilling the institutional purpose of the hearing process.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.369349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Non-Mandatory Volunteering Traffic Noise Pollution Developer F
type: PublicHearingSelectiveTestimonyRelevanceJudgmentNon-MandatoryVolunteeringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The City Planning Board hearing involved multiple engineers testifying independently; other engineers subsequently testified about the adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts that Engineer A had not volunteered
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not automatically obligated to volunteer all adverse impact information — including traffic, noise, and air pollution — at the City Planning Board hearing when other independent engineers were also testifying and when Engineer A's professional judgment determined such information was not relevant and pertinent to the specific hearing purpose.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 precedent on selective testimony in multi-witness public hearings
sourcetext: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
temporalscope: At the City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development project
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Waterfront Development Hearing
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Developer F to present a waterfront development project to the City Planning Board; the Board's analysis required determining whether Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits while not volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts conformed to the NSPE Code
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer testifying before the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F, was constrained to perform all testimony obligations in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, prohibiting deceptive framing, selective omission of relevant and pertinent information, and artfully misleading presentation structures.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on engineer public testimony obligations
sourcetext: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: Throughout the City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development project
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Artfully-Misleading Selective Emphasis City X Planning Board Presentation
type: Client-FavorableSelectiveEmphasisAffirmativeConcealmentBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A presented the waterfront development emphasizing environmental improvement while not volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The constraint establishes the boundary between permissible client-favorable selective emphasis and impermissible affirmative concealment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from structuring his presentation to the City X Planning Board in a manner that affirmatively created a false or misleading impression about the waterfront development's impacts, even while permissibly emphasizing the environmental benefits of the industrial-to-parkland conversion without volunteering all adverse impacts.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER precedent on selective testimony
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
temporalscope: During the City X Planning Board hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.769652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Presentation
type: Client-RetainedPresenterPublicWelfareImpactNon-ConcealmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and maintain the boundary between permissible selective emphasis on environmental benefits and impermissible affirmative concealment of public welfare impacts — specifically, to avoid structuring the waterfront development presentation in a manner that affirmatively created a false impression about the project's overall public welfare impact.
casecontext: Public hearing before City Planning Board; Engineer A retained by Developer F to present waterfront development project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's presentation highlighted environmental benefits without structuring the presentation to affirmatively conceal the known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, remaining within the permissible range of faithful agent advocacy.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.369500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Deception Constraint Public Hearing Presentation BER Present Case
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The non-deception constraint sets the outer ethical boundary on Engineer A's selective presentation — permissible selective emphasis must not cross into affirmative deception of the public regulatory body.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the non-deception provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics not to structure the public hearing presentation in a manner that affirmatively created a false or misleading impression about the waterfront development's impacts — while non-volunteering of adverse impacts was permissible under a relevance judgment, any presentation framing that affirmatively misled the City X Planning Board about the project's traffic, noise, or air pollution impacts would constitute a violation of the non-deception constraint.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, non-deception provisions (Section II.3.a)
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's presentation and question-and-answer period at the City X Planning Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.765101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Mandatory Volunteering Adverse Impacts Multi-Witness Planning Board Hearing
type: PublicHearingSelectiveTestimonyRelevanceJudgmentNon-MandatoryVolunteeringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A did not volunteer traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; later, other witnesses including other engineers testified about those impacts at the same hearing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not automatically obligated to volunteer all potentially adverse information about traffic, noise, and air pollution when presenting at the City Planning Board hearing, provided Engineer A exercised professional judgment that such information was not 'relevant and pertinent' to the specific hearing purpose and would have provided the information if directly questioned; the multi-witness structure of the hearing — in which other engineers independently testified on those impacts — further supports the permissibility of selective professional judgment about relevance.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
temporalscope: During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.367922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case BER Dual-Precedent Synthesis Application
type: BERDual-PrecedentPublicPolicyDebateSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Public Policy Debate Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethical analysis of Engineer A's obligations required application of the synthesized framework from BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2, demonstrating that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions from the same facts and that the present case's disclosure question must be analyzed in light of those precedents.
casecontext: Present case — BER's application of dual-precedent synthesis to Engineer A's public hearing disclosure obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: The BER's use of Cases 65-9 and 79-2 to establish the framework for analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations regarding traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
textreferences: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here.
textreferences: Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Environmental Policy Subjective Balancing Non-Objective-Resolution Constraint
type: ProfessionalJudgmentEnvironmentalTrade-OffFinalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board acknowledged that many important public policy questions involving environmental trade-offs are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations, informing the standard applied to Engineer A's disclosure obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to recognize that the traffic, noise, and air pollution trade-offs in the waterfront development project did not admit of a single objectively correct answer — professional judgment, not objective resolution, governed the balance between environmental benefits and adverse impacts, prohibiting the imposition of a single mandatory disclosure standard that ignored the subjective policy dimensions of the trade-off.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 precedent on environmental trade-off subjectivity
sourcetext: many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's evaluation and presentation of the waterfront development project
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
textreferences: many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.374512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Environmental Subjectivity Acknowledgment
type: EnvironmentalTrade-OffProfessionalJudgmentFinalArbiterCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development involved subjective and difficult policy considerations rather than objectively resolvable technical questions, and to apply case-by-case professional judgment as the final arbiter of the relevance and pertinence determination.
casecontext: Present case — waterfront development public hearing environmental impact assessment
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that the environmental trade-offs involved in the waterfront development — including traffic, noise, and air pollution versus parkland conversion benefits — were subject to varying arguments and required case-by-case professional judgment
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations
textreferences: Present Case Environmental Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment
textreferences: environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
textreferences: many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Assessment
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingPresenterFaithfulAgentSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly assess the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: recognizing that he may legitimately highlight the environmental improvements of the waterfront development without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if those impacts are not relevant and pertinent, while simultaneously recognizing that this latitude does not extend to affirmative concealment or artful misrepresentation.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer A presenting waterfront development to City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's presentation emphasizing the conversion of industrial waterfront to parkland and environmental improvements, while the ethical permissibility of not volunteering traffic and pollution impacts turned on his professional judgment about relevance and pertinence
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Multi-Engineer Conflicting View Permissibility
type: Multi-EngineerConflictingProfessionalViewEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's ethical situation required recognition that the conflicting views between himself (emphasizing environmental improvements) and other hearing engineers (testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution) were ethically permissible, reflecting honest differences of professional judgment rather than ethical violations by any party.
casecontext: Present case — multiple engineers testifying at City Planning Board hearing with differing emphases on project impacts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: The BER's application of the principle from Cases 65-9 and 79-2 that conflicting professional views between engineers are not a matter of ethical concern, applied to the present case's context of multiple engineers testifying differently at the same public hearing
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
textreferences: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Public Hearing Direct Question Honest Answer
type: PublicHearingDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely and honestly, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, recognizing that while he may exercise professional judgment about what to volunteer, the obligation to answer direct questions truthfully and fully is unconditional.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer A presenting waterfront development to City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to respond completely and honestly to the City Planning Board's direct questions about the waterfront development's impacts, regardless of client-favorable presentation strategy
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Traffic Noise Air Pollution Judgment
type: PublicHearingRelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to exercise professional judgment about whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to calibrate his voluntary disclosure obligations accordingly — recognizing that if relevant and pertinent, disclosure was obligatory, and if not, disclosure was not ethically required.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer A presenting waterfront development to City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board emphasizing environmental improvements of the waterfront development while not volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, with the ethical permissibility of this approach turning on his professional judgment about relevance and pertinence
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Waterfront Development Hearing
type: PublicControversyHonestObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A maintained honest and objective professional conduct throughout the public hearing process, refraining from advocacy-driven distortion of technical findings while presenting the project in a client-favorable light within permissible bounds
casecontext: Public regulatory hearing involving competing expert testimony about a waterfront development project with mixed public welfare impacts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Presenting accurate environmental benefits without fabricating or distorting technical data; willingness to provide complete honest testimony if directly questioned about adverse impacts
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Controversy Objectivity Maintenance Waterfront Development
type: PublicControversyHonestObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to maintain honest and objective professional statements throughout the public controversy surrounding the waterfront development, refraining from advocacy-driven distortion of technical findings while acting as faithful agent for Developer F.
casecontext: Public hearing on waterfront development with competing stakeholder interests
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Maintaining professional objectivity in presenting the waterfront development project while navigating the tension between faithful agent obligations and public welfare disclosure duties
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer A NSPE Code Conformance Public Testimony Waterfront Development
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Disclosure Waterfront
type: PublicHearingAdverseImpactRelevance-ConditionedVoluntaryDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly determine whether the adverse impacts of the waterfront development — increased traffic, noise, and air pollution — were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to calibrate voluntary disclosure obligations accordingly, recognizing that non-volunteering was permissible given the multi-witness hearing structure and the absence of direct questioning.
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development; adverse impacts known but not directly questioned
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's professional judgment that voluntary disclosure of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts was not required in the absence of direct questioning, while remaining willing to disclose if questioned, in a hearing where other witnesses addressed those impacts.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.369651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing NSPE Code Conformance Self-Assessment
type: NSPECodePublicTestimonyConformanceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to self-assess whether his presentation of the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board conformed to the NSPE Code of Ethics, including evaluating whether selective emphasis on environmental benefits crossed into code-violating deception.
casecontext: Engineer A retained by Developer F to present waterfront development at City Planning Board public hearing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Navigating the obligation to act as faithful agent for Developer F while ensuring that the presentation structure did not violate NSPE Code provisions on honesty and public welfare
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer A NSPE Code Conformance Public Testimony Waterfront Development
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.374780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution
type: PublicHearingRelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to exercise professional judgment about whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development were relevant and pertinent to the City Planning Board hearing, determining that — in the context of a multi-witness hearing where other engineers would address these issues — non-volunteering of these impacts was within the permissible range of professional judgment.
casecontext: City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development project; multi-witness hearing with other engineers testifying on adverse impacts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's decision not to volunteer traffic, noise, and air pollution information when not directly questioned, while the multi-witness hearing structure ensured these issues were addressed by other witnesses.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:15.378113+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.374941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Relevance Pertinence Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution
type: PublicHearingRelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A exercised professional judgment that traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were not sufficiently relevant and pertinent to the specific waterfront development hearing to require volunteering, while remaining prepared to answer direct questions on those topics
casecontext: Public hearing before City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront development project in City X; Engineer A retained by Developer F to present the design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A did not volunteer information about increased traffic, noise, and air pollution during the City Planning Board presentation, but indicated willingness to answer if directly questioned
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.763282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Selective Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution Permissibility BER Present Case
type: PublicHearingSelectiveTestimonyRelevanceJudgmentNon-MandatoryVolunteeringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presented the waterfront development project to the City X Planning Board, highlighting the environmental benefit of converting an industrial facility to parkland while not volunteering known adverse impacts of increased traffic, noise, and air pollution. Other witnesses subsequently testified about these impacts at the same hearing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not automatically obligated to volunteer information about increased traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development when presenting to the City X Planning Board on behalf of Developer F, provided Engineer A exercised professional judgment that such information was not 'relevant and pertinent' to the specific hearing purpose and would have provided the information if directly questioned — and the subsequent testimony of other witnesses on these issues at the same hearing further mitigates any ethical concern about the omission.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:51.138062+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on selective testimony at public hearings
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's presentation and question-and-answer period at the City X Planning Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Testimony NSPE Code Consistency Constraint City X
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Developer F to present a waterfront development project at a public regulatory hearing. The BER emphasized that engineers testifying before public bodies on matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare must perform their obligations consistently with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to perform all obligations associated with his public hearing presentation before the City X Planning Board in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, including objectivity, completeness, non-deception, and faithful agent duties — the public nature of the testimony and its effect on public policy did not relax but rather heightened these ethical obligations.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's engagement with the City X Planning Board hearing
textreferences: Because of the effect that their testimony may have on public policy discussions of this type
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Relevance-Pertinence Disclosure Trigger Traffic Noise Air Pollution City Planning Board
type: Relevance-PertinenceProfessionalJudgmentDisclosureTriggerConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A presented environmental benefits of the waterfront development without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; the Board analyzed whether the relevance-pertinence standard governed the disclosure obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Relevance-Pertinence Professional Judgment Disclosure Trigger Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to disclose known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development to the City Planning Board was conditioned on whether those impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' as determined by Engineer A's professional judgment — neither automatic non-disclosure nor automatic mandatory disclosure was required, with professional judgment serving as the operative trigger.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 precedent
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
temporalscope: At the time of the City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development project
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Relevance-Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution Planning Board Hearing
type: Relevance-PertinenceProfessionalJudgmentDisclosureTriggerConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, highlighted environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion but did not volunteer known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; other witnesses later testified on those impacts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Relevance-Pertinence Professional Judgment Disclosure Trigger Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to disclose known adverse impacts — traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution — only if those impacts met the threshold of being 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing's subject matter as determined by professional judgment; neither automatic silence nor automatic mandatory disclosure was required, but the professional judgment determination of relevance and pertinence was the operative trigger.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case precedent on selective testimony at public hearings
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During and in preparation for the City Planning Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.367770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure Trigger City X Planning Board
type: PublicHearingSelectiveTestimonyRelevanceJudgmentNon-MandatoryVolunteeringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presented a waterfront development project to the City X Planning Board, highlighting environmental improvements from industrial-to-parkland conversion without volunteering anticipated traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The Board analyzed whether those impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' such that disclosure was ethically obligated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to disclose traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development to the City X Planning Board if and only if his professional judgment determined those impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing — he was not obligated to volunteer them if professional judgment determined they were not relevant and pertinent, but was obligated to disclose them if they met that threshold.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on selective testimony at public hearings
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
temporalscope: During and in preparation for the City X Planning Board hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.769500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Retention Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Affirmative Concealment Boundary Developer F Hearing
type: Client-FavorableSelectiveEmphasisAffirmativeConcealmentBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A emphasized environmental improvement from industrial-to-parkland conversion while not volunteering known adverse commercial-use impacts; the boundary between permissible selective emphasis and impermissible affirmative concealment was the operative ethical constraint.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was permitted to structure the presentation to highlight the environmental benefits of converting the industrial waterfront to parkland without volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, provided the presentation did not affirmatively create a false or misleading impression, did not suppress information when directly questioned, and did not exploit procedural limitations to prevent adverse information from reaching the City Planning Board.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:43:00.424283+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception and objectivity provisions; BER Case precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.368076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Non-Deceptive Boundary Developer F Planning Board
type: Client-FavorableSelectiveEmphasisAffirmativeConcealmentBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A emphasized the environmental benefit of converting an industrial waterfront to parkland while not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; the constraint boundary required that this selective emphasis not cross into artful misleading
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained such that selective emphasis on the environmental benefits of converting the industrial waterfront to parkland was permissible only insofar as it did not affirmatively create a false or misleading impression about the project's overall impacts — the constraint prohibited structuring the presentation in a manner designed to prevent the City Planning Board from learning material facts about traffic, noise, and air pollution.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER Case precedent on selective testimony
sourcetext: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
temporalscope: Throughout the City Planning Board hearing presentation
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
textreferences: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Technically True Selective Emphasis Non-Misleading Boundary Waterfront Presentation
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A navigated the boundary between permissible client-favorable emphasis on environmental benefits and impermissible artful omission that would create a false impression of the project's overall public welfare impact, recognizing that a presentation highlighting only benefits without affirmative misrepresentation does not constitute a technically-true-but-misleading statement
casecontext: Public hearing presentation for Developer F's waterfront development before City Planning Board
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Presenting environmental improvements accurately without making affirmatively false or misleading statements about traffic, noise, or pollution; remaining prepared to answer direct questions truthfully
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:58:45.396986+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.764045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution factors during Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution factors during Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
from entity text: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution factors
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s presentation to the City Planning Boa
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A's presentation and Q&A before City Planning Board before other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
from entity text: Engineer A's presentation and Q&A before City Planning Board
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: other witnesses testifying about traffic noise a
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board before other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A's retention by Developer F before public hearing before the City Planning Board
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X. As part of the process for approving Developer F's project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing.
from entity text: Engineer A's retention by Developer F
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: public hearing before the City Planning Board
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: public hearing before the City Planning Board
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment
type: EnvironmentalTrade-OffProfessionalJudgmentFinalArbiterCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B, as consulting engineer retained by the town council, possessed the capability to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the environmental trade-off between landfill capacity needs and environmental protection, collaborating with the town engineer to produce a defensible design solution.
casecontext: BER Case 79-2 — consulting engineer's environmental trade-off judgment in landfill redesign
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Participation in multiple redesign iterations and ultimate production of an acceptable design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted at the present rate of use in three years
textreferences: Engineers A and B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted at the present rate of use in three years
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.766283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2
type: ConsultingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Landfill design, environmental engineering', 'retained_by': 'Town council'}
caseinvolvement: Consulting engineer retained by the town council to collaborate with the town engineer on studies and redesign of the existing sanitary landfill, producing multiple redesigns until an acceptable solution was reached.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Town Council'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_challenge', 'target': 'Engineer C Resident Challenger BER 79-2'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Consulting Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill.
textreferences: Engineer A and Engineer B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill.
textreferences: Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted at the present rate of use in three years
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.758620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDisagreementPost-DecisionAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C publicly contended that the higher-level landfill design would be environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater pollution. The BER found Engineer C acted ethically in raising his concern but established that post-deliberation acceptance of the outcome was required.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer C (BER Case 79-2)
constraintclass: Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C, having publicly challenged Engineers A and B's higher-contour landfill design as environmentally unsound, was constrained to accept the outcome of the public deliberative process if, after due consideration of all views, the decision-making authority proceeded with the challenged design — prohibiting continued characterization of the accepted design as unethical solely because his preferred alternative was not adopted.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 79-2
sourcetext: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
temporalscope: After the town council's deliberation and decision on the landfill design
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
textreferences: these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.770130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Acceptance Non-Ethical-Indictment
type: Post-Public-Policy-DecisionEngineeringAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Public-Policy-Decision Engineering Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed the capability to accept, after appropriate public authority considered all views and decided to proceed with the landfill expansion, that Engineers A and B had acted in conformance with the code, and to refrain from continued professional disparagement of their design decision.
casecontext: BER Case 79-2 — post-decision acceptance of landfill expansion design after public controversy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that after due consideration of Engineer C's public challenge, if the decision was to proceed, all involved engineers should be accepted as having acted ethically
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C (BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
type: Post-Public-Policy-DecisionEngineeringAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Public-Policy-Decision Engineering Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to possess the capability to accept, after due consideration of all views, that if the decision to proceed with the higher-level landfill design was made by appropriate public authority, all involved engineers — including Engineers A and B — had acted in conformance with the code, and that conflicting professional views between engineers were not a matter of ethical concern.
casecontext: BER Case 79-2 — resident engineer's post-challenge acceptance obligation after public policy resolution
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's conclusion that Engineer C should accept the outcome if the decision to proceed was made after due consideration, and that conflicting views between engineers should be of no concern
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C Resident Challenger BER 79-2
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment Landfill Design Acceptance
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDisagreementPost-DecisionAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher-intensity landfill design; the Board found that after public deliberation and authority decision, Engineer C was obligated to accept the outcome as ethically legitimate
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer C (BER Case 79-2)
constraintclass: Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C, having publicly challenged Engineers A and B's landfill design, was constrained — after due consideration of all views and resolution by appropriate public authority — to accept the outcome as ethically legitimate and to refrain from continued characterization of the accepted design as unethical solely because his preferred alternative was not adopted.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
temporalscope: After the appropriate public authority resolved to proceed with the higher-contour landfill design
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.374166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Public Policy Challenge Ethical Permissibility Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerConflictingProfessionalViewEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed the capability to recognize that publicly challenging the landfill expansion design as environmentally unsound was ethically permissible, reflecting a legitimate professional disagreement rather than an ethical violation, and that such conflicting views between engineers are not a matter of ethical concern.
casecontext: BER Case 79-2 — public challenge to landfill expansion design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Publicly contending that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater pollution concerns
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C (BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern
textreferences: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
textreferences: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C Public Challenge to Landfill Design
type: ProfessionalOpinionConflictatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's first public statement through Board's ethical review
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Town council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
stateclass: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
subject: Engineer C's public challenge to Engineers A and B's accepted landfill design on environmental grounds
terminatedby: Board finding that Engineer C acted ethically and that conflicting engineering views in public arena are permissible
textreferences: Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
textreferences: these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority
triggeringevent: Engineer C publicly contending that the higher-contour design would cause methane migration and groundwater pollution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.756746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C's public contention about environmental unsoundness (BER Case No. 79-2) before Engineer C publicly questioning whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to higher intensity use
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer Retention Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Loyalty_Constraint
activates constraint: Conflict_Of_Interest_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Competence_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from uninvolved party to retained professional with fiduciary and ethical duties to both Developer F and the broader public
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Duty_To_Avoid_Misleading_Representations
creates obligation: Duty_To_Disclose_Pertinent_Information
creates obligation: Duty_To_Prioritize_Public_Safety_Over_Client_Interest
creates obligation: Duty_To_Serve_Client_Competently
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Project initiation, prior to public hearing
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer A is formally retained by Developer F for the waterfront development project in City X, establishing a professional-client relationship with attendant duties and obligations.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer_Selective_Disclosure_Standard
type: EngineerSelectiveDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code of Ethics)
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard (derived from NSPE Code)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in resolving the present case
usedincontext: The operative normative standard applied to determine whether Engineer A is obligated to disclose traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of a commercial development when testifying before a public body — holding that disclosure is required only if the information is 'relevant and pertinent' in the engineer's professional judgment
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer_Selective_Disclosure_Standard_Relevant_Pertinent
type: EngineerSelectiveDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code of Ethics)
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard — Relevant and Pertinent Information Test
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:48.238295+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer A is obligated to disclose traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of a commercial development when testifying before a public body; the standard holds that disclosure is required only when information is 'relevant and pertinent' in the engineer's professional judgment
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.360542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment
type: EnvironmentalTrade-OffProfessionalJudgmentFinalArbiterCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers A and B possessed the capability to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the level of environmental degradation that was unavoidable, conducting a case-by-case analysis that incorporated minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes to reach an acceptable design solution.
casecontext: BER Case 79-2 — town engineer and consulting engineer's landfill redesign balancing environmental and public welfare trade-offs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Collaboration on multiple redesigns of the sanitary landfill, ultimately producing a design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes that balanced environmental concerns with the town's disposal needs
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:06:12.215934+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
textreferences: Engineers A and B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.765267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Finality
type: ProfessionalJudgmentEnvironmentalTrade-OffFinalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineers A and B designed a landfill more than 100 feet higher than originally proposed, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes per state environmental laws. Engineer C challenged the design as environmentally unsound. The BER found Engineers A and B acted ethically, with professional judgment as the final arbiter of the environmental trade-off.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineers A and B (BER Case 79-2)
constraintclass: Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineers A and B's professional judgment served as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental risks of the higher-contour design — their compliance-based design decision could not be characterized as unethical solely because residual environmental risks (methane migration, groundwater contamination) remained.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 79-2
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
temporalscope: During the design and approval of the higher-contour landfill
textreferences: Engineers A and B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.770457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A B C BER 65-9 79-2 Multi-Engineer Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board used BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 to establish that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions from the same facts, providing the analytical framework for evaluating Engineer A's disclosure obligations in the present case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: All engineers in BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 and present case
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: Neither the consulting firm principal's disagreement with highway department engineers (BER 65-9) nor Engineer C's challenge to Engineers A and B's landfill design (BER 79-2) constituted an ethical violation — the constraint prohibits characterizing one engineer's professionally grounded public policy position as unethical merely because another equally qualified engineer reached a different conclusion from the same facts.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
temporalscope: Applicable throughout all public policy engineering disagreements referenced in the case
textreferences: Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer
textreferences: That … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.374330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A B C BER 79-2 Landfill Mutual Ethical Legitimacy of Competing Conclusions
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineers A and B designed a higher-contour landfill at the town council's request; Engineer C publicly challenged the design as environmentally unsound. The BER found both positions ethically legitimate, establishing that conflicting professional views in public policy engineering debates are not inherently unethical on either side.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineers A, B, and C (BER Case 79-2)
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: Neither Engineers A and B (who designed the higher-contour landfill) nor Engineer C (who publicly challenged it) could characterize the other's professionally grounded position as unethical solely by virtue of the disagreement — both positions were ethically legitimate expressions of honest professional judgment on the same set of facts.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:05:47.069156+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, 79-2
sourcetext: engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
temporalscope: Throughout the public controversy over the landfill design
textreferences: That … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.770306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
type: EnvironmentalTrade-OffProfessionalJudgmentFinalArbiterCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers A and B possessed the capability to apply case-by-case professional judgment to the landfill expansion design, balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against environmental concerns including methane migration and groundwater pollution, recognizing that no finite answer existed to the environmental trade-off.
casecontext: BER Case 79-2 — sanitary landfill expansion design with environmental trade-offs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Collaborating on multiple redesigns of the sanitary landfill to higher final contours, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes, while balancing environmental concerns against the town's disposal needs
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:43.869117+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 79-2 Town Engineer) and Engineer B (BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
textreferences: each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.376165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Finality Landfill Design
type: ProfessionalJudgmentEnvironmentalTrade-OffFinalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineers A and B designed a landfill expansion at higher contours per town council request and state environmental law compliance; Engineer C publicly challenged the design as environmentally unsound; the Board found Engineers A and B acted ethically
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineers A and B (BER Case 79-2)
constraintclass: Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineers A and B's professional judgment served as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental risks of the higher-contour design — external characterization of their compliance-based design decision as unethical solely because residual environmental risks remained was prohibited.
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:49:16.696914+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
temporalscope: Throughout the landfill redesign process and subsequent public controversy
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.373985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A and B Landfill Design Public Controversy
type: PublicControversyEngineeringDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the higher-contour design through public debate and Engineer C's public challenge
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Engineer A (town engineer)
affectedparties: Engineer B (consulting engineer)
affectedparties: Engineer C (town resident)
affectedparties: Town council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and that it would pollute the nearby ground water
stateclass: Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
subject: Engineers A and B's higher-contour landfill redesign for the town council
terminatedby: Board determination that all engineers acted ethically and that conflicting public views are of no ethical concern
textreferences: Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and that it would pollute the nearby ground water
textreferences: The issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy
triggeringevent: Town council acceptance of the higher-contour landfill design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes, followed by Engineer C's public environmental objections
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.756386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A and B study of landfill contours (BER Case No. 79-2) before Engineer C publicly contending the higher level design would be environmentally unsound (BER Case No. 79-2)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound... Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site.
from entity text: Engineers A and B study of landfill contours (BER Case No. 79-2)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer C publicly contending the higher level design would be environmentally unsound (BER Case No. 79-2)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer C publicly contending the higher level de
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Environmental-Impact-Disclosure-Standard
type: EnvironmentalImpactDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
usedby: Engineer A when presenting the waterfront development design to the City Planning Board
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to disclose all material environmental findings — including adverse impacts such as increased traffic, air pollution, and noise — when presenting a development proposal to a public authority, not merely the favorable environmental conversion from industrial to parkland
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Frame Presentation Around Benefits
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Board members may form decisions without full awareness of negative environmental tradeoffs
foreseen unintended effects: Other witnesses may need to supply omitted information, potentially undermining project credibility
foreseen unintended effects: Selective emphasis on benefits creates an incomplete picture for the Planning Board
fulfills obligation text: Provided accurate information about the environmental benefits of parkland conversion
fulfills obligation text: Responded to the client's interest in presenting the project favorably
guided by principle text: Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports and public statements
guided by principle text: Engineers shall not suppress or distort technical data to favor a client
guided by principle text: Public bodies rely on engineers for complete technical information to make sound policy decisions
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Persuade the City Planning Board of the environmental merits of the waterfront development project to support approval
raises obligation text: Obligation to disclose all relevant and pertinent information to a public body
raises obligation text: Obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount over client interests
raises obligation text: Obligation to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner
requires capability text: Environmental impact analysis and communication
requires capability text: Public hearing presentation and testimony
requires capability text: Technical judgment about project impacts
temporal marker: During public hearing before City Planning Board; presentation phase
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: During the public hearing, Engineer A deliberately chooses to structure the presentation to highlight the environmental benefits of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to parkland, affirmatively selecting a positive framing for the project's environmental profile.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Frame Presentation Around Benefits (Action 2) → Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A deliberately chooses to structure the presentation to highlight benefits while, as a direct consequence of that framing choice combined with the omission of known negative impacts, the Planning Board's deliberative record contains a materially incomplete picture of the project's consequences
cause: Frame Presentation Around Benefits (Action 2)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A framed the presentation to include known negative impacts, the information gap would not have arisen regardless of whether Board members asked follow-up questions
effect: Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer A's conditional commitment to honesty only if directly questioned (Action 4)
necessary factors: Engineer A's deliberate decision to frame testimony around benefits only
necessary factors: Engineer A's possession of knowledge about negative impacts (traffic, air pollution, noise)
necessary factors: The absence of Board members specifically questioning Engineer A about those impacts (Event 3)
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Benefit-only framing + omission of known negatives + Board silence on impacts = sufficient to produce a one-sided record without any single factor alone being sufficient
sufficient factors: The conditional honesty commitment (Action 4) ensured that Board silence (Event 3) would not trigger voluntary disclosure, completing the sufficient set
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.150848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

II.3.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.150895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

II.3.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.150932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.150965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Industrial Waterfront Conversion Proposed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Industrial Waterfront Conversion Proposed → Public Hearing Convened
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Information Gap In Record
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Informed_Decision_Making_Constraint
activates constraint: Integrity_Of_Public_Record_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Welfare_Primacy_Constraint
causes state change: The public record is materially incomplete as presented by the project engineer; the board must now reconstruct a balanced picture from disparate sources rather than receiving integrated expert analysis; public trust in the engineering expert role is potentially undermined
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Board_Obligation_To_Weigh_Full_Record_Including_Third_Party_Testimony
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Correct_Record_If_Opportunity_Arises
creates obligation: Professional_Community_Obligation_To_Maintain_Standards_Of_Disclosure
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Throughout and following the public hearing
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: As a result of Engineer A's selective presentation, the Planning Board's deliberative record contains a material informational asymmetry: environmental benefits are presented by the project's own engineer while negative impacts are introduced only by third-party witnesses, potentially skewing the board's initial impressions.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Information Gap In Record Event 5 → Prior BER Cases Referenced Event 6 - ethical violation confirmed by precedent analysis
type: CausalChain
causal language: As a result of Engineer A's selective presentation producing an information gap in the Planning Board's deliberative record, the case analysis invokes prior Board of Ethical Review decisions to evaluate and confirm that Engineer A's conduct constitutes a violation of engineering ethics obligations, particularly the duty to be objective and truthful in public statements and to act in the public interest
cause: Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A's presentation been complete and balanced, there would have been no information gap to analyze, and the BER precedents would have been referenced only to confirm compliant conduct rather than to establish a violation
effect: Prior BER Cases Referenced (Event 6), ethical violation confirmed by precedent analysis
necessary factors: The ethical review process examining Engineer A's conduct against established professional standards
necessary factors: The existence of a demonstrable information gap in the record attributable to Engineer A's conduct
necessary factors: The existence of prior BER precedents addressing analogous selective disclosure and public testimony ethics scenarios
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Documented information gap + applicable BER precedents + ethical review process = sufficient to produce a finding that Engineer A's conduct violated professional engineering ethics obligations
within agent control: true

Information Gap In Record (Event 5) → Prior BER Cases Referenced (Event 6) — ethical violation confirmed by precedent analysis
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Landfill Environmental Safety vs. Community Need Tension
type: CompetingPublicGoodsTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the town council's inability to locate an alternate disposal site through acceptance of the higher-contour design
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Town council
affectedparties: Town residents
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
stateclass: Competing Public Goods Tension State
subject: Trade-off between the town's need for landfill capacity and environmental protection of adjacent properties and groundwater
terminatedby: Acceptance of the redesign incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes; Board's acknowledgment that no finite answer exists to the environmental trade-off
textreferences: each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
triggeringevent: Town council's exhaustion of alternate disposal location options and request for higher-contour redesign under state environmental laws
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.756915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect... but it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect... but it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
usedby: Engineer A when preparing and delivering public hearing testimony
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to provide complete, objective, and truthful information at the public hearing before the City Planning Board, including whether omission of known negative impacts (traffic, air, noise pollution) constitutes an ethical violation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.756025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:02.648359+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority establishing that engineers testifying before public bodies must perform their obligations consistently with the Code; also grounds the 'relevant and pertinent information' disclosure obligation
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Negative Impacts Testified
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Omit Known Negative Impacts
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Other engineers subsequently testify about omitted impacts, potentially signaling Engineer A's selective disclosure
foreseen unintended effects: Planning Board makes decisions without complete environmental impact information from the primary project engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Public interest may be harmed if the Board approves a project without understanding its full environmental tradeoffs
fulfills obligation text: Did not make affirmatively false statements
fulfills obligation text: Maintained conditional willingness to answer honestly if directly questioned
guided by principle text: Engineers testifying before public bodies bear heightened obligations to completeness given their effect on public policy
guided by principle text: Silence on material facts known to the engineer may constitute a form of misrepresentation in a public hearing context
guided by principle text: The public and public bodies rely on engineers for technical information they cannot independently assess
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Avoid introducing negative information that could jeopardize project approval, while remaining technically truthful about what was stated
requires capability text: Environmental impact assessment
requires capability text: Professional judgment about materiality and relevance of technical information
requires capability text: Public hearing testimony ethics
temporal marker: During public hearing; throughout presentation and Q&A phase
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Obligation not to suppress or withhold technical data that affects public policy decisions
violates obligation text: Obligation to be objective and complete in public technical testimony
violates obligation text: Obligation to disclose all relevant and pertinent information to a public body
violates obligation text: Obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A, fully aware that the anticipated commercial development would increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution, makes a conscious decision not to volunteer this information to the City Planning Board during the presentation or Q&A, despite its direct relevance to the project's environmental profile.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Omit Known Negative Impacts (Action 3) → Board Members Silent On Impacts (Event 3) enabling Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A, fully aware that the anticipated commercial development would increase traffic, air pollution, and noise, omits these known impacts from testimony; because the Board receives no signal that these issues exist as concerns, members have no basis upon which to formulate targeted questions, contributing causally to their silence and the resulting record gap
cause: Omit Known Negative Impacts (Action 3)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A disclosed the negative impacts, Board members would have had a concrete basis to ask follow-up questions, and the record gap would not have formed in the same way; alternatively, had the Board possessed independent pre-hearing research identifying these impacts, member silence might not have occurred
effect: Board Members Silent On Impacts (Event 3) enabling Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
necessary factors: Absence of other information sources alerting the Board to the omitted issues prior to Engineer A's testimony
necessary factors: Board members' reliance on Engineer A's expert presentation as a basis for identifying what questions to ask
necessary factors: Engineer A's actual knowledge of the negative impacts
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision not to disclose those impacts voluntarily
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Expert omission of material facts + Board reliance on expert framing for question formulation = sufficient to produce uninformed Board silence on those specific issues during Engineer A's testimony
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
type: PublicHearingWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'testimony_subject': 'Traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution impacts', 'independence': 'Not retained by Developer F'}
caseinvolvement: Independent engineers attending the public hearing who provide testimony about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues associated with the proposed waterfront development — information that Engineer A did not volunteer.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:35:51.302613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:35:51.302613+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Hearing Witness Engineer
sourcetext: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
textreferences: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.358859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
type: PublicHearingWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'independence': 'Not retained by Developer F', 'testimony_subject': 'Traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts'}
caseinvolvement: Engineers (and other witnesses) who independently testified at the public hearing about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the proposed waterfront development — information that Engineer A had not volunteered.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'supplements_testimony_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Hearing Witness Engineer
sourcetext: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
textreferences: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.760051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Present Case Precedent Calibration
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Board's ethical review of Engineer A's disclosure obligation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Public body receiving presentation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
stateclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
subject: Board's use of BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 to calibrate Engineer A's disclosure obligation in the present commercial development case
terminatedby: Board's final determination on Engineer A's disclosure obligation
textreferences: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive
textreferences: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose
textreferences: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
triggeringevent: Board's need to determine whether prior cases on inter-engineer disagreement apply to a single engineer's disclosure obligation regarding collateral impacts
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.363148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Prior BER Cases Referenced
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Established_Ethical_Standard_Constraint
activates constraint: Precedent_Consistency_Constraint
causes state change: The ethical analysis moves from fact-specific inquiry to normative evaluation against established professional standards; Engineer A's conduct is now measured against a known and documented baseline of expected professional behavior
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Obligation_To_Apply_Consistent_Ethical_Standards_Across_Cases
creates obligation: Obligation_To_Recognize_That_Disclosure_Duty_Is_Not_Novel_But_Established
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Discussion/analysis phase, after factual events
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: low
comment: The Discussion section of the case analysis invokes two prior Board of Ethical Review decisions (Case 65-9 from 1965 and Case 79-2 from 1979) as precedent to contextualize and evaluate Engineer A's disclosure obligations, establishing that the ethical standard at issue has prior authoritative grounding.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Report Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
usedby: Engineer A when structuring and delivering the public hearing presentation
usedincontext: Governs the completeness and accuracy of Engineer A's public presentation, prohibiting selective framing of findings in ways that create a misleadingly positive impression of the project's impacts before the City Planning Board
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public-Interest-Balancing-Framework
type: PublicInterestBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Interest Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:20.166645+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Interest Balancing Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
usedby: Engineer A when deciding what information to present and withhold at the public hearing
usedincontext: Provides the decision framework for weighing Engineer A's duty to the client (Developer F) against the broader obligation to the public and the City Planning Board, particularly regarding disclosure of negative community impacts of the proposed waterfront development
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Hearing Convened
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Inform_Public_Deliberation_Constraint
activates constraint: Expert_Witness_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Forum_Honesty_Constraint
causes state change: The project moves from private planning into public regulatory scrutiny; Engineer A's professional conduct becomes subject to civic accountability and public record
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Duty_To_Present_Complete_And_Accurate_Information_To_Board
creates obligation: Duty_To_Represent_Engineering_Profession_With_Integrity
creates obligation: Duty_To_Volunteer_Material_Information_Affecting_Public_Interest
emergency status: routine
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After project design phase; before Engineer A's presentation
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: medium
comment: The City Planning Board convenes a public hearing at which Engineer A is scheduled to present the proposed waterfront development design, creating a formal civic forum for expert testimony.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Publicly Challenge Landfill Design
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.755664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Publicly Issue Highway Criticism Letter
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.770498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Publicly Issue Highway Criticism Letter → BER Precedent Cases Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.154921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could significantly increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what point does Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits cross the line from permissible advocacy into an artfully misleading presentation that violates the prohibition on material omissions under Code Section III.3.a?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does Engineer A's willingness to answer honestly only if directly questioned satisfy the spirit of the NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness requirements, or does it create a strategic silence that instrumentalizes the public hearing process to the detriment of the City Planning Board's informed decision-making?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Should the Board have considered whether Engineer A had an independent obligation to disclose material adverse impacts to the City Planning Board arising from the public nature of the hearing, separate from and potentially superseding the faithful agent obligation owed to Developer F?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: How should the Board's conclusion change, if at all, if the other witnesses who subsequently raised the traffic, noise, and air pollution concerns had not appeared at the hearing, leaving the City Planning Board with only Engineer A's benefit-focused presentation as the technical record?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation owed by Engineer A to Developer F conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when Engineer A's selective presentation of environmental benefits, while omitting known adverse traffic and pollution impacts, serves the client's approval interests at the potential expense of the City Planning Board's ability to make a fully informed regulatory decision?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard invoked by Engineer A to justify non-volunteering of adverse impacts conflict with the Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation owed to the City Planning Board, given that traffic, air, and noise pollution are objectively material to a regulatory body evaluating a major commercial waterfront development?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness principle — which the Board uses to justify Engineer A's non-volunteering by relying on other witnesses to fill informational gaps — conflict with the Objectivity Principle and Transparency Principle, insofar as Engineer A cannot ethically delegate the disclosure of known material facts to the contingent appearance of other witnesses whose participation is not guaranteed?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance principle create an irresolvable tension with the Engineer Public Testimony Heightened Obligation in the present case, where Engineer A's role as Developer F's retained advocate structurally incentivizes selective presentation before a regulatory body that is entitled to expect technical objectivity from a licensed engineer?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty of truthfulness under NSPE Code Section II.3.a require proactive disclosure of all material facts known to the engineer — including adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts — regardless of whether the City Planning Board specifically asked about them, or is the duty satisfied by a commitment to answer honestly if questioned?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.151982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the multi-witness public hearing process produce sufficiently complete information for the City Planning Board to make an informed decision, such that Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits — without volunteering adverse traffic and pollution impacts — produced no net harm to the public interest?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 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 intellectual honesty expected of a competent engineer appearing before a public regulatory body when choosing to highlight only the environmental benefits of the waterfront development while remaining silent on known adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts — even if that silence was technically permissible under the Board's ruling?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the faithful agent obligation Engineer A owes to Developer F under NSPE Code Section II.4 create a permissible basis for selective emphasis in a public hearing presentation, or does the engineer's simultaneous duty to the public welfare under Section II.3.a impose a categorical override that prohibits any presentation strategy that omits material adverse impacts — even when those impacts are not directly solicited by the regulatory body?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If no other engineers or witnesses had subsequently testified about the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts at the public hearing — leaving the City Planning Board with only Engineer A's benefit-focused presentation — would the Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically still hold, given that the institutional completeness rationale would no longer apply?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If the City Planning Board had approved the waterfront development project solely on the basis of Engineer A's presentation — before other witnesses testified — and the project subsequently caused significant traffic congestion and air and noise pollution harm to the surrounding community, would Engineer A bear professional ethical responsibility for those harms under the NSPE Code, and would the Board's conclusion have been different in that scenario?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had proactively volunteered the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts during the initial presentation — without being asked — would Developer F have had grounds to claim a breach of the faithful agent obligation under NSPE Code Section II.4, and how should the Board weigh that tension between client loyalty and public disclosure in retained-engineer public hearing contexts?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had been retained not by Developer F but directly by the City Planning Board as an independent technical advisor — rather than as the developer's consulting engineer — would the ethical obligation to proactively disclose the adverse traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts have been categorically different, and what does that distinction reveal about how the source of retention shapes the scope of disclosure duty in public hearing contexts?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.152382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T21:06:52.155441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Selectively Highlight Environmental Benefits
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Selectively Highlight Environmental Benefits → Negative Impacts Testified
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.771980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

State Highway Department Engineers BER 65-9
type: StateHighwayDepartmentRouteDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'employer': 'State highway department', 'specialty': 'Highway route engineering and cost estimation', 'action': 'Prepared official route analysis and cost estimates; recommended route B'}
caseinvolvement: Engineers within the state highway department who prepared engineering data, cost estimates, and route recommendations for the interstate bypass, recommending route B as the preferred alternative.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_critique', 'target': 'Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: State Highway Department Route Design Engineer
sourcetext: a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass of part of the interstate highway system
textreferences: a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass of part of the interstate highway system
textreferences: cost estimates of the highway department engineers
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.360865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Subsequent Witnesses Raise Concerns
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_Not_To_Allow_Misleading_Record_To_Stand
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Under_Scrutiny_Constraint
activates constraint: Retroactive_Correction_Obligation_Constraint
causes state change: The information gap created by Engineer A's omission is partially filled by other witnesses; Engineer A's selective presentation is now implicitly contradicted by the public record, raising questions about the completeness and integrity of the original testimony
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Duty_To_Acknowledge_Known_Negative_Impacts_If_Given_Opportunity
creates obligation: Duty_To_Correct_Or_Supplement_Prior_Incomplete_Testimony
creates obligation: Obligation_Not_To_Remain_Silent_When_Omission_Is_Exposed
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Later in the same public hearing, after Engineer A's presentation
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: After Engineer A's testimony, other witnesses including other engineers testify before the Planning Board specifically about traffic, noise, and air pollution concerns associated with the development project.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Town Council BER 79-2 Municipal Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal legislative body', 'role': 'Client directing landfill redesign'}
caseinvolvement: The town council that retained Engineers A and B to study and redesign the sanitary landfill, directing multiple redesigns and ultimately requesting a design with higher final contours to address waste disposal needs.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council
textreferences: Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council
textreferences: the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.361684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Withhold Unprompted Pollution Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Withhold Unprompted Pollution Disclosure → Negative Impacts Testified
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250377+00:00
value: Disagreement is permissible when grounded in professional analysis of the same facts, not in competitive self-interest or personal attack.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249122+00:00
value: The Board found the disagreement ethically permissible because it was grounded in honest professional judgment and engaged with the full factual record, not in self-interest or incomplete knowledge.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247089+00:00
value: Disagreement is permissible when grounded in professional analysis of the same facts, not in competitive self-interest or personal attack.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249071+00:00
value: Disagreement is permissible when grounded in professional analysis of the same facts, not in competitive self-interest or personal attack.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249807+00:00
value: The faithful agent role is satisfied within ethical limits because Engineer A did not affirmatively misrepresent the adverse impacts, would have answered truthfully if questioned, and the hearing process supplied the omitted information through other witnesses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249964+00:00
value: The tension between client advocacy and public disclosure is resolved by the relevance-and-pertinence filter: disclosure is mandatory when the threshold is crossed, permissibly omitted when it is not, and the multi-witness process compensates for gaps in retained-engineer disclosure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247931+00:00
value: The tension between client advocacy and public disclosure is resolved by the relevance-and-pertinence filter: disclosure is mandatory when the threshold is crossed, permissibly omitted when it is not, and the multi-witness process compensates for gaps in retained-engineer disclosure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247863+00:00
value: The Board resolved the tension by holding that the public hearing process itself — with multiple witnesses — supplies the information that any single engineer may not volunteer, so Engineer A's non-disclosure was not unethical given his professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250430+00:00
value: Completeness in responsive testimony is fully satisfied; the residual question about proactive disclosure is resolved by the relevance and pertinence standard and the multi-witness hearing structure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249607+00:00
value: Completeness in responsive testimony is fully satisfied; the residual question about proactive disclosure is resolved by the relevance and pertinence standard and the multi-witness hearing structure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249675+00:00
value: The honesty obligation and the relevance and pertinence standard are complementary rather than conflicting: the former governs the quality of what is disclosed, while the latter governs the scope of what must be voluntarily disclosed.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249904+00:00
value: The Board held that the faithful agent obligation and the public testimony obligation were reconciled through the professional judgment standard: Engineer A fulfilled his faithful agent role by presenting the project, and his professional judgment about relevance and pertinence defined the outer boundary of his disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247475+00:00
value: The honesty obligation and the relevance and pertinence standard are complementary rather than conflicting: the former governs the quality of what is disclosed, while the latter governs the scope of what must be voluntarily disclosed.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246277+00:00
value: The faithful agent role is satisfied within ethical limits because Engineer A did not affirmatively misrepresent the adverse impacts, would have answered truthfully if questioned, and the hearing process supplied the omitted information through other witnesses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246370+00:00
value: The Board held that the faithful agent obligation and the public testimony obligation were reconciled through the professional judgment standard: Engineer A fulfilled his faithful agent role by presenting the project, and his professional judgment about relevance and pertinence defined the outer boundary of his disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246133+00:00
value: The Board navigated this tension by holding that Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Developer F did not require him to suppress relevant information, while his public testimony obligation did not require him to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent — the two obligations were reconciled through the professional judgment standard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247406+00:00
value: The Board held that the faithful agent obligation and the public testimony obligation were reconciled through the professional judgment standard: Engineer A fulfilled his faithful agent role by presenting the project, and his professional judgment about relevance and pertinence defined the outer boundary of his disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246753+00:00
value: Engineer A may present the project favorably and need not proactively disclose traffic/noise/air pollution impacts if professional judgment determines they are not relevant and pertinent; but if they are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory regardless of client preference.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246887+00:00
value: The Board balanced public welfare against faithful agent obligations by holding that the public hearing process as a whole — not any single engineer's presentation — is the mechanism for ensuring public welfare is protected, and that Engineer A's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence was a legitimate exercise of the discretion the code affords.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248167+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation is satisfied because Engineer A presented the project accurately (the environmental benefits are genuine), answered questions truthfully, and was prepared to disclose adverse information if asked. The ethical limits are not breached because no active deception occurred and the hearing process compensated through other witnesses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248224+00:00
value: The faithful agent role is satisfied within ethical limits because Engineer A did not affirmatively misrepresent the adverse impacts, would have answered truthfully if questioned, and the hearing process supplied the omitted information through other witnesses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248276+00:00
value: The Board balanced public welfare against faithful agent obligations by holding that the public hearing process as a whole — not any single engineer's presentation — is the mechanism for ensuring public welfare is protected, and that Engineer A's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence was a legitimate exercise of the discretion the code affords.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247188+00:00
value: Completeness in responsive testimony is fully satisfied; the residual question about proactive disclosure is resolved by the relevance and pertinence standard and the multi-witness hearing structure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248679+00:00
value: The multi-witness hearing structure resolves the tension between Engineer A's retained advocacy role and the public body's need for complete information; the institutional process, not the individual retained engineer, bears primary responsibility for completeness in adversarial public hearings.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250032+00:00
value: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A did not violate ethical standards by not volunteering the adverse information, because the hearing process provided a mechanism for other parties to raise those issues, and Engineer A was prepared to answer truthfully if questioned. The relevance and pertinence standard, combined with the compensating role of other witnesses, resolved the tension in favor of permissibility.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249464+00:00
value: Honesty requires non-deception, not exhaustive volunteering of all adverse information; Engineer A's presentation was honest in that it did not contain false statements, and the engineer's readiness to answer questions truthfully demonstrates good faith compliance with the honesty principle.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250087+00:00
value: The proactive disclosure obligation is contextually satisfied by the hearing process; because other witnesses supply the adverse information, Engineer A's non-volunteering does not leave the Planning Board without the information needed for an informed decision.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247547+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation is satisfied because Engineer A presented the project accurately (the environmental benefits are genuine), answered questions truthfully, and was prepared to disclose adverse information if asked. The ethical limits are not breached because no active deception occurred and the hearing process compensated through other witnesses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246475+00:00
value: The tension between client advocacy and public disclosure is resolved by the relevance-and-pertinence filter: disclosure is mandatory when the threshold is crossed, permissibly omitted when it is not, and the multi-witness process compensates for gaps in retained-engineer disclosure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249750+00:00
value: The Board navigated this tension by holding that Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Developer F did not require him to suppress relevant information, while his public testimony obligation did not require him to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent — the two obligations were reconciled through the professional judgment standard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246580+00:00
value: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A did not violate ethical standards by not volunteering the adverse information, because the hearing process provided a mechanism for other parties to raise those issues, and Engineer A was prepared to answer truthfully if questioned. The relevance and pertinence standard, combined with the compensating role of other witnesses, resolved the tension in favor of permissibility.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246675+00:00
value: The proactive disclosure obligation is contextually satisfied by the hearing process; because other witnesses supply the adverse information, Engineer A's non-volunteering does not leave the Planning Board without the information needed for an informed decision.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248067+00:00
value: Engineer A satisfies the testimony role obligation by answering questions truthfully and completely; the non-volunteering of adverse information is evaluated under the relevance and pertinence standard applicable to public hearings.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247987+00:00
value: The principle establishes a professional-judgment-gated disclosure obligation: the engineer must disclose if the information is relevant and pertinent, but is not required to disclose if professional judgment determines it is not — while the multi-witness hearing process provides an institutional backstop through other witnesses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247336+00:00
value: The Board held that Engineer A's professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent was the operative ethical standard; the presence of other witnesses who did provide that information confirmed that the public hearing process as a whole supplied the decision-maker with the necessary information.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247265+00:00
value: The multi-witness process does not eliminate Engineer A's disclosure obligation for relevant and pertinent information, but it contextualizes that obligation within an institutional framework designed to surface adverse information through multiple channels.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248745+00:00
value: The multi-witness process does not eliminate Engineer A's disclosure obligation for relevant and pertinent information, but it contextualizes that obligation within an institutional framework designed to surface adverse information through multiple channels.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247805+00:00
value: The multi-witness hearing structure resolves the tension between Engineer A's retained advocacy role and the public body's need for complete information; the institutional process, not the individual retained engineer, bears primary responsibility for completeness in adversarial public hearings.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250139+00:00
value: Engineer A may present the project favorably and need not proactively disclose traffic/noise/air pollution impacts if professional judgment determines they are not relevant and pertinent; but if they are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory regardless of client preference.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247620+00:00
value: Engineer A may present the project favorably and need not proactively disclose traffic/noise/air pollution impacts if professional judgment determines they are not relevant and pertinent; but if they are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory regardless of client preference.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250480+00:00
value: The multi-witness process does not eliminate Engineer A's disclosure obligation for relevant and pertinent information, but it contextualizes that obligation within an institutional framework designed to surface adverse information through multiple channels.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248380+00:00
value: The Board's holding that Engineer A's professional judgment was the operative standard implicitly required that judgment to be objective; a judgment motivated by client interest rather than technical assessment would not satisfy the ethical standard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248329+00:00
value: The heightened obligation is satisfied when the engineer applies genuine professional judgment to the relevance-and-pertinence determination, rather than defaulting to client preference.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249273+00:00
value: The tension between client advocacy and public disclosure is resolved by the relevance-and-pertinence filter: disclosure is mandatory when the threshold is crossed, permissibly omitted when it is not, and the multi-witness process compensates for gaps in retained-engineer disclosure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249408+00:00
value: The Board's holding that Engineer A's professional judgment was the operative standard implicitly required that judgment to be objective; a judgment motivated by client interest rather than technical assessment would not satisfy the ethical standard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250202+00:00
value: The Board balanced public welfare against faithful agent obligations by holding that the public hearing process as a whole — not any single engineer's presentation — is the mechanism for ensuring public welfare is protected, and that Engineer A's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence was a legitimate exercise of the discretion the code affords.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248559+00:00
value: The principle resolves the tension by distinguishing between the completeness obligation in private advisory reports (where the engineer is the sole information source) and public hearings (where the adversarial multi-witness process supplies completeness); Engineer A's conditional willingness to answer if questioned supports the conclusion that no deceptive intent was present.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248449+00:00
value: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A did not violate ethical standards by not volunteering the adverse information, because the hearing process provided a mechanism for other parties to raise those issues, and Engineer A was prepared to answer truthfully if questioned.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248506+00:00
value: The Board resolved the tension by holding that the public hearing process itself — with multiple witnesses — supplies the information that any single engineer may not volunteer, so Engineer A's non-disclosure was not unethical given his professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248627+00:00
value: The ethical obligation to disclose information at a public hearing is calibrated to the engineer's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence; information that the engineer in good faith judges to be outside the hearing's scope need not be volunteered, though it must be disclosed if asked.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249326+00:00
value: Objectivity in the public hearing context does not require neutrality equivalent to an independent reviewer; a retained engineer may present the client's project favorably while maintaining objectivity by ensuring all representations are technically accurate and all questions are answered completely.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249537+00:00
value: Transparency is achieved at the hearing level through the multi-witness process; Engineer A's individual non-disclosure is mitigated by the availability of other witnesses and Engineer A's willingness to answer truthfully if questioned.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249018+00:00
value: The principle dissolves the apparent ethical conflict between the competing engineering positions by relocating final authority to the public body.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250258+00:00
value: The Board held that both Engineers A and B (who proceeded with the design) and Engineer C (who challenged it) acted ethically, because the trade-off admitted no single correct answer and each engineer exercised honest professional judgment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248950+00:00
value: The Board resolved the tension by affirming that both the engineers who designed the landfill and the engineer who challenged it acted ethically, because the public debate process — not any single engineering judgment — is the proper resolution mechanism for contested public policy engineering decisions.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.250311+00:00
value: The principle resolves the apparent conflict by affirming that both positions can be ethically held simultaneously; the public authority, not engineering consensus, resolves the policy question.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.246947+00:00
value: The Board held that both Engineers A and B (who proceeded with the design) and Engineer C (who challenged it) acted ethically, because the trade-off admitted no single correct answer and each engineer exercised honest professional judgment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248826+00:00
value: The Board held that both Engineers A and B (who proceeded with the design) and Engineer C (who challenged it) acted ethically, because the trade-off admitted no single correct answer and each engineer exercised honest professional judgment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247701+00:00
value: Professional judgment is the final arbiter; the engineers acted ethically by exercising that judgment in good faith even though Engineer C reached a different conclusion.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.247003+00:00
value: The principle resolves the apparent conflict by affirming that both positions can be ethically held simultaneously; the public authority, not engineering consensus, resolves the policy question.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.248881+00:00
value: Professional judgment is the final arbiter; the engineers acted ethically by exercising that judgment in good faith even though Engineer C reached a different conclusion.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:46:36.249217+00:00
value: Professional judgment is the final arbiter; the Board does not resolve whether the impacts are in fact relevant and pertinent, but confirms that Engineer A's good-faith judgment on that question is the ethically operative standard.

initial landfill design studies (BER Case No. 79-2) before town council request for higher contour redesign
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

multiple redesigns not accepted (BER Case No. 79-2) before final acceptable design with minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

public hearing before City Planning Board before Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.772468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's oral presentation to the City Planning Board — a public regulatory authority — raises the question of whether the completeness standard applicable to written reports submitted to public authorities also applies to oral testimony.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts on City X residents — who are third parties to the developer-engineer relationship — raises the question of whether the paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to volunteer this information.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness — presenting genuine facts while omitting others — satisfies the honesty standard.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development emphasizing environmental benefits while not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — raising the question of whether client retention has compromised objectivity.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board in a manner that highlights the project's environmental benefits — acting as a faithful agent for the client — while not volunteering adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A does not volunteer information about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts when presenting the waterfront development to the City Planning Board, because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors; other witnesses addressed those impacts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, presenting at the City Planning Board hearing as Developer F's retained engineer, bore a heightened ethical obligation to perform his testimony consistently with the NSPE Code of Ethics because his technical expertise gave his presentation disproportionate influence.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board applied the BER 65-9 and BER 79-2 precedents to the present case to establish that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts — including whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts are relevant and pertinent.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board was required to be truthful and non-deceptive; while he was not obligated to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent, he was obligated to answer all questions posed to him completely and honestly.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional judgment about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' was required to be based on objective technical assessment rather than on Developer F's commercial interests.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was not ethically required to voluntarily disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development at the City Planning Board hearing because, in his professional judgment, those impacts were not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development design at the City Planning Board hearing, acted as Developer F's faithful agent by presenting the project's design features — while retaining the professional authority to exercise independent judgment.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's analysis of engineers' obligations when testifying before public bodies was grounded in the fundamental principle that engineers' technical expertise must be deployed in service of public health, safety, and welfare.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering known adverse traffic and pollution impacts raises a question about whether the presentation meets the objectivity standard expected of a professional engineer before a public regulatory body.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing — simultaneously serving as Developer F's professional representative (emphasizing environmental benefits) and as a technically responsible professional.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present a waterfront development project before the City Planning Board, bears a heightened ethical obligation because engineers' technical testimony has disproportionate influence on public policy decisions.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer presenting before the City Planning Board, bears a heightened obligation to perform the testimony role consistently with professional ethics — because the Board and public rely on the engineer's technical expertise.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's non-disclosure of known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts to the City Planning Board raises a transparency concern: the Planning Board and public are not informed of these impacts by the presenting engineer.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, highlighting environmental benefits but not volunteering known information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development are the kind of environmental and public policy questions that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis — they involve subjective policy considerations.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — and non-disclosure of these to the City Planning Board without being asked — raises the question of whether proactive risk disclosure to the regulatory body and affected public was required.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's stated willingness to provide complete testimony about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if questioned demonstrates that the completeness obligation in responsive testimony is acknowledged.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the project in a manner that emphasizes its environmental benefits — consistent with the client's interest in project approval — while not actively misrepresenting the project's adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing: permitted to emphasize favorable environmental benefits while obligated not to suppress material adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development is conditioned on whether those impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The landfill expansion controversy — involving conflicting engineering opinions about environmental soundness — was properly subject to open public debate and resolution by the appropriate public authority (the town council), not by engineering fiat.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B exercised professional judgment to balance the town's need for landfill capacity against environmental risks, arriving at a higher-contour design that satisfied state environmental law; the Board held this judgment-based balancing was ethically sound.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B's decision to prepare the higher-contour landfill design — balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against methane and groundwater risks — was ethically grounded in professional judgment about the best balance of competing interests.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's public challenge to Engineers A and B's landfill expansion design — contending it was environmentally unsound due to methane migration and groundwater pollution — was ethically permissible as an honest professional disagreement.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's public challenge to the landfill design was held ethical as a contribution to open public debate; the Board held that if the appropriate public authority decided to proceed after hearing all views, all engineers involved would have acted ethically.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The consulting firm principal's public disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendation for the interstate bypass was ethically permissible because engineers can legitimately reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The consulting engineer's public letter disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing a fourth route was held ethically permissible because honest differences of professional opinion on the same facts are a normal part of engineering practice.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board, as the public regulatory decision-making body, requires complete information about the waterfront development project — including both its environmental benefits and its adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board, as a non-engineer regulatory body, relies on Engineer A's presentation to make an informed decision about the waterfront development; Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering traffic impacts creates a tension.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board's ability to make an informed regulatory decision about the waterfront development depended on receiving all relevant and pertinent information — including traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board hearing, in which Engineer A presents the project's environmental benefits and other engineers testify about adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts, exemplifies the open public debate process through which engineering policy questions are resolved.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board hearing process is the institutional mechanism through which public welfare considerations — including both the environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland and the adverse impacts of increased traffic — are weighed.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board hearing's multi-witness structure — in which Engineer A presents the project's benefits and other engineers independently testify about adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts — functions as the institutional mechanism for completeness.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development included testimony from multiple witnesses — Engineer A (retained by developer), other independent engineers raising traffic/noise/air pollution concerns, and public participants.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 65-9 and BER 79-2 — which involved differences between multiple engineers over the same facts — from the present case, which involved the obligation of a single engineer to disclose information.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A does not volunteer information about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts when presenting the waterfront development to the City Planning Board, because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was not ethically required to voluntarily disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development at the City Planning Board hearing because, in his professional judgment, those impacts were not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development is conditioned on whether those impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development is conditioned on whether those impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board in a manner that highlights the project's environmental benefits — acting as a faithful agent for the client — while not volunteering adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the project in a manner that emphasizes its environmental benefits — consistent with the client's interest in project approval — while not actively misrepresenting the project's adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board in a manner that highlights the project's environmental benefits — acting as a faithful agent for the client — while not volunteering adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing: permitted to emphasize favorable environmental benefits while obligated not to suppress material adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing — simultaneously serving as Developer F's professional representative (emphasizing environmental benefits) and as a technically responsible professional.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing: permitted to emphasize favorable environmental benefits while obligated not to suppress material adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A does not volunteer information about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts when presenting the waterfront development to the City Planning Board, because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board hearing's multi-witness structure — in which Engineer A presents the project's benefits and other engineers independently testify about adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts — functions as the institutional mechanism for completeness.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development included testimony from multiple witnesses — Engineer A (retained by developer), other independent engineers raising traffic/noise/air pollution concerns, and public participants.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's stated willingness to provide complete testimony about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if questioned demonstrates that the completeness obligation in responsive testimony is acknowledged.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development are the kind of environmental and public policy questions that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis — they involve subjective policy considerations.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B's decision to prepare the higher-contour landfill design — balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against methane and groundwater risks — was ethically grounded in professional judgment about the best balance of competing interests.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B exercised professional judgment to balance the town's need for landfill capacity against environmental risks, arriving at a higher-contour design that satisfied state environmental law; the Board held this judgment-based balancing was ethically sound.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's public challenge to the landfill design was held ethical as a contribution to open public debate; the Board held that if the appropriate public authority decided to proceed after hearing all views, all engineers involved would have acted ethically.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The landfill expansion controversy — involving conflicting engineering opinions about environmental soundness — was properly subject to open public debate and resolution by the appropriate public authority (the town council), not by engineering fiat.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's public challenge to Engineers A and B's landfill expansion design — contending it was environmentally unsound due to methane migration and groundwater pollution — was ethically permissible as an honest professional disagreement.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The consulting firm principal's public disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendation for the interstate bypass was ethically permissible because engineers can legitimately reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The consulting engineer's public letter disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing a fourth route was held ethically permissible because honest differences of professional opinion on the same facts are a normal part of engineering practice.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts on City X residents — who are third parties to the developer-engineer relationship — raises the question of whether the paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to volunteer this information.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board in a manner that highlights the project's environmental benefits — acting as a faithful agent for the client — while not volunteering adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development design at the City Planning Board hearing, acted as Developer F's faithful agent by presenting the project's design features — while retaining the professional authority to exercise independent judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness — presenting genuine facts while omitting others — satisfies the honesty standard.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness satisfies the honesty standard.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board was required to be truthful and non-deceptive; while he was not obligated to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent, he was obligated to answer all questions posed to him completely and honestly.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness — presenting genuine facts while omitting others — satisfies the honesty standard.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness satisfies the honesty standard.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness satisfies the honesty standard.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development emphasizing environmental benefits while not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — raising the question of whether client retention has compromised objectivity.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional judgment about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' was required to be based on objective technical assessment rather than on Developer F's commercial interests.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development emphasizing environmental benefits while not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — raising the question of whether client retention has compromised objectivity.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts on City X residents — who are third parties to the developer-engineer relationship — raises the question of whether the paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to volunteer this information.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts on City X residents — who are third parties to the developer-engineer relationship — raises the question of whether the paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to volunteer this information.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, presenting at the City Planning Board hearing as Developer F's retained engineer, bore a heightened ethical obligation to perform his testimony consistently with the NSPE Code of Ethics because his technical expertise gave his presentation disproportionate influence.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer presenting before the City Planning Board, bears a heightened obligation to perform the testimony role consistently with professional ethics — because the Board and public rely on the engineer's technical expertise.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present a waterfront development project before the City Planning Board, bears a heightened ethical obligation because engineers' technical testimony has disproportionate influence on public policy decisions.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, highlighting environmental benefits but not volunteering known information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely and honestly, without evasion or material omission, regardless of whether the subject matter was adverse to Developer F's interests.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from structuring his presentation to the City Planning Board in a manner that affirmatively concealed or created a false impression about the known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfr

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from structuring the presentation in a manner that affirmatively concealed or created a false impression about known adverse public welfare impacts — including traffic, noise, and air pollution — even while acting as Developer F's faithful agent.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as Developer F's faithful agent, was permitted to present the waterfront development in a client-favorable manner emphasizing environmental benefits, provided he did not affirmatively misrepresent or conceal material facts about adverse impacts.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development to the City Planning Board if and only if his professional judgment determined that such information was 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was permitted to rely on the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing — in which other engineers independently testified about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — as an institutional completeness mechanism.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer testifying before the City Planning Board on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare, was obligated to perform his obligations in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A faced a tension between the competing public goods of environmental improvement (industrial-to-parkland conversion) and public welfare impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution) — the question of whether Engineer A was obligated to disclose both sides.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely, honestly, and without evasion, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, and this obligation was satisfied by Engineer A's stated willingness to answer such questions.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as faithful agent for Developer F, was obligated to recognize the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: highlighting environmental benefits was permissible, but the presentation could not cross into affirmative misrepresentation.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to exercise objective professional judgment to determine whether the anticipated traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, presenting the waterfront development to the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F, was obligated to exercise professional judgment about which information was relevant and pertinent to volunteer — and was not required to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to volunteer only information that professional judgment determined was relevant and pertinent.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer testifying before the City Planning Board on the waterfront development project, was obligated to perform all aspects of that testimony in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was permitted to rely on the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing — in which other independent engineers testified about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — as an institutional completeness mechanism.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, while permissibly emphasizing the waterfront development's environmental benefits (conversion of industrial waterfront to parkland) consistent with Developer F's interests, was obligated to ensure that this selective emphasis did not cross into affirmative misrepresentation.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development to the City Planning Board if — and only if — Engineer A's objective professional judgment determined that such information was 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer testifying before the City Planning Board on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare, was obligated to perform his obligations in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely and honestly, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, without evasion or material omission.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from structuring the waterfront development presentation in a manner that affirmatively concealed or created a false impression about known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to volunteer only information that professional judgment determined was relevant and pertinent.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, in evaluating and presenting the waterfront development project, was obligated to recognize that the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — like the environmental trade-offs in BER 65-9 and 79-2 — are the kind of important public policy questions that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A faced a tension between the competing public goods of environmental improvement (industrial-to-parkland conversion) and public welfare impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution) — the question of whether Engineer A was obligated to disclose both sides.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent for Developer F in presenting the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, serving Developer F's interests by highlighting the project's environmental benefits, within the limits of professional ethics.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as faithful agent for Developer F, was obligated to recognize the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: highlighting environmental benefits was permissible, but the presentation could not cross into affirmative misrepresentation.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development to the City Planning Board if — and only if — Engineer A's objective professional judgment determined that such information was 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply case-by-case professional judgment to the landfill expansion design, balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against environmental concerns including methane migration and groundwater pollution.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental risks of the higher-level design, recognizing that no finite answer exists.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply case-by-case professional judgment to the landfill expansion design, balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against environmental concerns including methane migration and groundwater pollution.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply case-by-case professional judgment to the landfill expansion design, balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against environmental concerns including methane migration and groundwater pollution.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental risks of the higher-level design.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having publicly challenged the higher-level landfill design as environmentally unsound, was obligated to accept — after due consideration of all views by the appropriate public authority — that Engineers A and B had acted in conformance with professional ethics.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly contending that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound and questioning whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the landfill.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having publicly challenged the landfill expansion design as environmentally unsound, was obligated — after the appropriate public authority considered all views and reached a decision — to accept that Engineers A and B had acted in conformance with professional ethics.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, was not ethically required to volunteer known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts to the City Planning Board when not directly questioned, provided the presentation did not affirmatively mislead the Board.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly contending that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The consulting firm principal who publicly disagreed with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposed an alternative route D was acting within ethical bounds, as honest professional disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other engineers is not prohibited.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The consulting firm principal was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly expressing disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing a fourth alternative route, because honest professional disagreement is permissible.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The consulting firm principal who publicly disagreed with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposed an alternative route D was acting within ethical bounds.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The consulting firm principal was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly expressing disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing a fourth alternative route.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that selective emphasis on the environmental benefits of the waterfront development did not cross the boundary into affirmative misrepresentation or suppression of material adverse public welfare impacts.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose known adverse impacts — including traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution — to the City Planning Board if directly questioned, and this conditional obligation was satisfied by Engineer A's stated willingness to answer such questions.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making statements or structuring the presentation in a manner that was technically accurate but designed to mislead the City Planning Board by obscuring the existence of known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that selective emphasis on the environmental benefits of converting the industrial waterfront to parkland did not create a materially false or deceptive impression about the project's overall public welfare impacts.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to make his professional judgment determination about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing objectively and in good faith — not driven by Developer F's commercial interests.

several redesigns not accepted by town council (BER Case No. 79-2) before town council requesting new design resulting in acceptable solution (BER Case No. 79-2)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: After several redesigns were not accepted, the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design, which resulted in an acceptable solution.
from entity text: several redesigns not accepted by town council (BER Case No. 79-2)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: town council requesting new design resulting in acceptable solution (BER Case No. 79-2)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: town council requesting new design resulting in ac
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.377944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER 65-9 Highway Route Public Disagreement
type: LegitimateInter-EngineerPublicDisagreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of consulting engineer's public letter through public policy resolution of route selection
affectedparties: City official
affectedparties: Consulting engineer (principal of firm)
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State highway department engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: a principal of a consulting engineering firm...issued a public letter...discussing the alternative routes
stateclass: Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
subject: Consulting engineer's public disagreement with state highway department engineers over bypass route cost estimates and route selection
terminatedby: Resolution of highway route selection by appropriate public authority
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department
textreferences: a principal of a consulting engineering firm...issued a public letter...discussing the alternative routes
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
triggeringevent: Consulting engineer published open letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing alternative Route D
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.362376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER 79-2 Competing Environmental and Infrastructure Goods
type: CompetingPublicGoodsTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the landfill redesign process and public controversy period
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Engineers A and B
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Town council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
stateclass: Competing Public Goods Tension State
subject: Tension between society's need for landfill capacity and environmental protection of adjacent properties and groundwater
terminatedby: Public authority's final decision on landfill design approach
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
triggeringevent: Town council's inability to find alternate disposal site, requiring higher-contour redesign of existing landfill
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.362765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER 79-2 Inter-Engineer Landfill Design Disagreement
type: LegitimateInter-EngineerPublicDisagreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's public statement through public authority resolution
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Town council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
stateclass: Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
subject: Engineer C's good-faith public challenge to Engineers A and B's landfill design conclusions
terminatedby: Public authority's final determination on the landfill design
textreferences: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
triggeringevent: Engineer C publicly challenged the environmental soundness of the approved higher-contour landfill design
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.362964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Present Case From BER 65-9 and 79-2
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BER Case No. 65-9 highway route controversy
appliedto: BER Case No. 79-2 landfill design controversy
appliedto: Present case waterfront development disclosure question
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 65-9 and BER 79-2 — which involved differences between multiple engineers over the same facts — from the present case, which involved the obligation of a single engineer to disclose information, while still finding both prior cases instructive for the present analysis.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board's ethical reasoning required careful identification of the material factual difference between the prior cases (inter-engineer disagreement) and the present case (single engineer's disclosure obligation), while recognizing that the prior cases remained instructive on the broader question of how environmental and public policy considerations are evaluated.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
principleclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
sourcetext: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by using the prior cases for their general principle (engineers can reach different conclusions on the same facts) while distinguishing the specific obligation at issue (a single engineer's disclosure duty vs. inter-engineer disagreement).
textreferences: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here.
textreferences: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.763905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer
type: TownEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Professional Judgment as Environmental Trade-Off Arbiter — BER 79-2 Landfill
has obligation: Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Municipal engineering, sanitary landfill design', 'employer': 'Town government'}
caseinvolvement: Town engineer who collaborated with consulting Engineer B on studies and redesigns of the existing sanitary landfill to higher final contours, acting under direction of the town council and subject to public challenge by Engineer C.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council BER 79-2'}
relationships: {'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_challenge', 'target': 'Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Town Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
textreferences: Engineer A and Engineer B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.361032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship with Developer F
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention through at least the public hearing presentation
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A retained by Developer F for the waterfront development project
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
triggeringevent: Developer F retains Engineer A for the major waterfront development project in City X
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.757985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Development Disclosure Threshold
type: ProfessionalJudgmentDisclosureThresholdDeterminationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's preparation of the public presentation through submission of the presentation to the public body
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public affected by development
affectedparties: Public body receiving presentation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
stateclass: Professional Judgment Disclosure Threshold Determination State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to determine whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts from anticipated commercial development are 'relevant and pertinent' to his public presentation
terminatedby: Engineer A's professional judgment determination on relevance and submission of presentation
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
triggeringevent: Engineer A's engagement to present on a project where anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, noise, and air pollution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.363325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer
type: LandfillExpansionDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Design Professional Judgment Trade-Off
has obligation: Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Consulting engineering, sanitary landfill design, environmental engineering', 'engagement': 'Retained by town council'}
caseinvolvement: Consulting engineer retained by the town council who collaborated with town Engineer A on multiple redesigns of the sanitary landfill to higher final contours, applying professional judgment on environmental trade-offs under state regulatory constraints.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council BER 79-2'}
relationships: {'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_challenge', 'target': 'Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Landfill Expansion Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council
textreferences: Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council
textreferences: Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted
textreferences: Engineers A and B to prepare a new design, which resulted in an acceptable solution
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.361205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Highway Route Alternative Proposal Public Disagreement
type: ProfessionalOpinionConflictatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of the consulting engineer's open letter through Board review
affectedparties: City official
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Principal of consulting engineering firm
affectedparties: State highway department engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: A principal of a consulting engineering firm … issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes
stateclass: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
subject: Consulting engineer's public disagreement with state highway department cost estimates and route selection, including proposal of Route D
terminatedby: Board determination that public expression of disagreement and alternative proposals is ethically permissible
textreferences: A principal of a consulting engineering firm … issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
textreferences: The letter then suggested a fourth route ('D') which, it was claimed, would be superior to those previously suggested
triggeringevent: Consulting engineer's publication of a public letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing an alternative Route D
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.756550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Invoked for City Planning Board
type: InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board's decision on Developer F's waterfront development project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board, as the public regulatory decision-making body, requires complete information about the waterfront development project — including both its environmental benefits and its adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts — to exercise genuinely informed judgment on Developer F's project approval.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to enable informed decision-making is satisfied at the hearing level through the combined testimony of Engineer A and other witnesses; the question is whether Engineer A individually bore the obligation to supply the adverse information or whether the hearing process as a whole satisfies it.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
principleclass: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
tensionresolution: The informed decision-making obligation is fulfilled by the hearing process as a whole; the Planning Board receives complete information through the multi-witness testimony structure, even though Engineer A did not individually volunteer all adverse impacts.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.365714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Tension at City X Public Hearing
type: InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board's decision-making on Developer F's waterfront development project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board, as a non-engineer regulatory body, relies on Engineer A's presentation to make an informed decision about the waterfront development; Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts creates a question about whether the Board received sufficient information to exercise genuinely informed judgment.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle is in tension with the Relevance and Pertinence Standard: while the Board ideally needs complete information, the public hearing structure — with multiple witnesses — compensates for any single engineer's selective presentation. The principle is not violated when the hearing process itself supplies the missing information through other witnesses.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
tensionresolution: The presence of other witnesses who testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts means the Board ultimately received the information needed for informed decision-making, resolving the tension in favor of the conclusion that Engineer A's non-disclosure did not deprive the Board of informed decision-making capacity.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.761587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Informed Decision Making Enablement City Planning Board Waterfront Development
type: InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board regulatory decision on Developer F's waterfront development
appliedto: Traffic, noise, and air pollution impact information
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board's ability to make an informed regulatory decision about the waterfront development depended on receiving all relevant and pertinent information — including traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — which was supplied in the present case by other hearing witnesses even if not by Engineer A.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to enable informed decision-making by the public regulatory authority was collectively satisfied by the public hearing process as a whole, with multiple witnesses contributing different pieces of relevant information, even though Engineer A individually did not volunteer the traffic and environmental impact data.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
invokedby: Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
sourcetext: The question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
tensionresolution: The Board implicitly resolved the tension by recognizing that the public hearing process — not any single engineer's presentation — is the mechanism for ensuring the decision-maker receives all relevant information; Engineer A's non-disclosure was ethically acceptable because other witnesses supplied the missing information.
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
textreferences: Other witnesses and participants in the public process may supply information the presenting engineer did not volunteer.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.766600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports Applied to City Planning Board Presentation
type: ObjectiveCompletenessinPublicAuthorityReports
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's oral presentation to the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's oral presentation to the City Planning Board — a public regulatory authority — raises the question of whether the completeness standard applicable to written reports submitted to public authorities also applies to oral testimony, and whether Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering adverse impacts violates that standard.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The objective completeness principle, while most clearly applicable to written reports, also informs oral testimony before public authorities. However, in the public hearing context — where multiple witnesses contribute different perspectives — the completeness obligation is distributed across the hearing process rather than concentrated in any single witness's testimony. Engineer A's non-disclosure is not a violation because the hearing structure compensates.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
tensionresolution: The objective completeness principle is satisfied at the hearing level (through other witnesses) even if not at the individual engineer level; the principle does not require each presenting engineer to volunteer all adverse information when the adversarial hearing structure ensures completeness through multiple participants.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Invoked in Engineer A's Public Hearing Presentation
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering known adverse traffic and pollution impacts raises a question about whether the presentation meets the objectivity standard expected of a professional engineer before a public regulatory body.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires that Engineer A not present a one-sided picture that misleads the Planning Board; the principle is partially satisfied by Engineer A's willingness to answer questions truthfully, but is in tension with the selective framing of the presentation.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland. But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
tensionresolution: Objectivity is maintained at the level of the hearing process as a whole through the testimony of other witnesses; Engineer A's individual presentation, while selective, did not involve affirmative misrepresentation.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.364063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Present Case Precedent Distinguishing from BER 65-9 and 79-2
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Board's ethical review of the present case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Public body receiving testimony
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
stateclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
subject: Board's analysis distinguishing the present case (single engineer's disclosure obligation) from prior cases (disagreements between multiple engineers on same facts)
terminatedby: Board's conclusion that Engineer A's disclosure obligation is governed by professional judgment about relevance and pertinence
textreferences: Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here
textreferences: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
textreferences: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
triggeringevent: Board's invocation of BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 as instructive precedents while recognizing the present case involves a different ethical question
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.757073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Invoked in Waterfront Development Hearing
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebateOpenResolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board decision-making process on Developer F's waterfront development
balancingwith: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board hearing, in which Engineer A presents the project's environmental benefits and other engineers testify about adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts, exemplifies the open public debate process through which engineering decisions affecting the public are legitimately resolved by the appropriate public authority.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle validates the hearing structure as the appropriate mechanism for resolving competing engineering perspectives on the waterfront project; both Engineer A's favorable presentation and other engineers' adverse testimony are legitimate contributions to the open debate that the Planning Board must resolve.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
invokedby: Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
tensionresolution: The open resolution principle supports the conclusion that Engineer A's non-volunteering is ethically acceptable because the public debate process — not any single engineer — is responsible for supplying the Board with complete information.
textreferences: As part of the process for approving Developer F's project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.365143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Waterfront Development Hearing
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Developer F's waterfront development project approval process
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board hearing process is the institutional mechanism through which public welfare considerations — including both the environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland and the adverse impacts of increased traffic, noise, and air pollution — are surfaced and weighed before a regulatory decision is made.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires that the City Planning Board receive complete information about the project's impacts; in this case, the principle is satisfied through the combined testimony of Engineer A (environmental benefits) and other witnesses (traffic, noise, pollution impacts), even though Engineer A did not volunteer the adverse information.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
invokedby: Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
tensionresolution: Public welfare is served by the hearing process as a whole; the question is whether Engineer A's individual non-disclosure undermines public welfare, which is mitigated by the fact that other witnesses supplied the omitted information and Engineer A would have answered truthfully if questioned.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.363687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Selective Testimony Completeness in Public Presentation
type: SelectiveTestimonyCompletenessJudgmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During preparation and delivery of Engineer A's presentation before the public body
affectedparties: Affected community members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
stateclass: Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
subject: Engineer A's exercise of professional judgment about which environmental impact information to volunteer in a public body presentation beyond the strict scope of the assigned task
terminatedby: Completion of the public presentation and Board's ethical determination
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
triggeringevent: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts and the need to decide whether to include them in the public presentation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.757649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic
type: PublicInterestHighwayRouteCriticEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 65-9 Highway Route Dispute
has obligation: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability
has obligation: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Disagreement Public Letter
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Highway/transportation engineering', 'action': 'Published open letter criticizing government route selection and proposing alternative'}
caseinvolvement: Principal of a consulting engineering firm that had performed work on a portion of the interstate highway publicly criticized the state highway department's proposed route B, disagreed with cost estimates, and proposed an alternative route D via a published letter in the local press.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_critic', 'target': 'State Highway Department Route Design Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_stakeholder', 'target': 'City Official'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Interest Highway Route Critic Engineer
sourcetext: A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect, issued a public letter
textreferences: A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect, issued a public letter
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
textreferences: the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.360719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal Highway Route Critic BER 65-9
type: PublicInterestHighwayRouteCriticEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honest Engineer Disagreement Permissibility BER 65-9 Highway Routes
has obligation: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability
has obligation: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Disagreement Public Letter
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Highway/transportation engineering', 'prior_engagement': 'Engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect'}
caseinvolvement: Principal of a consulting engineering firm who had performed work on a portion of the interstate highway; publicly issued a letter criticizing the state highway department's preferred route 'B,' disputed cost estimates, and proposed a superior alternative route 'D.'
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'aligned_with', 'target': 'City Official favoring Route D'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_critic_of', 'target': 'State Highway Department Engineers'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Interest Highway Route Critic Engineer
sourcetext: A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect, issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press
textreferences: A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the bypass would connect, issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press
textreferences: His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route.
textreferences: The letter then suggested a fourth route ('D') which, it was claimed, would be superior to those previously suggested.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.758762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Commitment BER Present Case
type: PublicHearingPresenterDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A presents the waterfront development at a public hearing. The City Planning Board poses questions. Engineer A responds to questions but is not specifically questioned about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Hearing Presenter Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely and honestly, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, without evasion or material omission.
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
temporalscope: During the question-and-answer portion of the public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger
type: ResidentEngineerPublicControversyChallenger
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 79-2 Landfill Design Dispute
has obligation: Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Challenge Post-Decision Acceptance
has obligation: Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Ethical Permissibility
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'community_role': 'Town resident', 'action': 'Public challenge of landfill design on environmental grounds'}
caseinvolvement: A resident of the town and licensed engineer who publicly contended that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater contamination risks, publicly questioning whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'advocate_for', 'target': 'Affected Community'}
relationships: {'type': 'challenger_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'challenger_of', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Resident Engineer Public Controversy Challenger
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property
textreferences: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
textreferences: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.361363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C Resident Challenger BER 79-2
type: ResidentEngineerPublicControversyChallenger
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Landfill BER 79-2
has obligation: Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Ethical Permissibility
has obligation: Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment of Engineers A and B
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering', 'community_status': 'Town resident'}
caseinvolvement: A resident of the town who publicly contended that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater pollution risks, and publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher-intensity design.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'advocates_for', 'target': 'Town residents and public'}
relationships: {'type': 'challenges', 'target': 'Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2'}
relationships: {'type': 'challenges', 'target': 'Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Resident Engineer Public Controversy Challenger
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and that it would pollute the nearby ground water.
textreferences: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
textreferences: Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site.
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and that it would pollute the nearby ground water.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.761042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked in Engineer A's Non-Disclosure of Adverse Impacts
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's non-disclosure of known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts to the City Planning Board raises a transparency concern: the Planning Board and public are not informed of these impacts by the presenting engineer, even though Engineer A is aware of them.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Transparency as a relational principle governing Engineer A's professional relationship with the City Planning Board requires that Engineer A not withhold material information that the Board needs to make an informed decision; however, the principle is contextually modulated by the public hearing structure in which other witnesses supply the omitted information.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
tensionresolution: Transparency is achieved at the hearing level through the multi-witness process; Engineer A's individual non-disclosure is mitigated by the availability of other witnesses and Engineer A's willingness to answer truthfully if questioned.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.364228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Controversy
type: PublicControversyEngineeringDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's public challenge through town council's final decision on landfill design
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Engineer A (town engineer)
affectedparties: Engineer B (consulting engineer)
affectedparties: Engineer C (town resident)
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Town council
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:32.584640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
stateclass: Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
subject: Engineers A and B's higher-contour landfill design challenged publicly by Engineer C on environmental grounds
terminatedby: Public authority resolution of landfill design decision
textreferences: Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
textreferences: The issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy
triggeringevent: Engineer C publicly contended that the higher-level design would cause methane migration and groundwater pollution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.362571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Client vs. Public Interest Tension in Public Hearing Presentation
type: Client-Interestvs.Public-InterestOpenConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the public hearing presentation
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: City X public
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
stateclass: Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's dual obligation to Developer F (client) and to the City X Planning Board and public
terminatedby: Not fully resolved within the case facts; partially mitigated by other witnesses raising the omitted issues
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
textreferences: Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
textreferences: it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
triggeringevent: Engineer A is required to present Developer F's project to a public regulatory body while possessing knowledge of adverse public impacts not highlighted in the presentation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.758301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Awareness of Undisclosed Development Impacts
type: UndisclosedRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the public hearing presentation, before other witnesses raise the issues
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: City X public
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
stateclass: Undisclosed Risk State
subject: Engineer A's knowledge of traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts not volunteered to the Planning Board
terminatedby: Other witnesses testify about these impacts at the same hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
textreferences: the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
triggeringevent: Engineer A becomes aware that the commercial development will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution but does not volunteer this information
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.758136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board Hearing
type: PublicHearingPresenterDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Retained by Developer F
casecontext: Engineer A responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board during the public hearing; Engineer A would have provided complete testimony about adverse impacts if directly questioned.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Honesty Obligation Engineer A City Planning Board Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Hearing Presenter Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely, honestly, and without evasion, including questions about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, and this obligation was satisfied by Engineer A's stated willingness to provide complete testimony if questioned.
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
temporalscope: During the question-and-answer portion of the public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.366143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Artfully-Misleading Selective Emphasis Presentation BER Present Case
type: Client-RetainedPresenterPublicWelfareImpactNon-ConcealmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Selective Testimony at Planning Board Hearing
casecontext: Engineer A presents the waterfront development emphasizing environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland, while being aware of but not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The question is whether the selective emphasis crossed into artful misleading.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from structuring the waterfront development presentation in a manner that affirmatively concealed or created a false impression about known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — the presentation could emphasize environmental benefits but could not be designed to deceive the City Planning Board about the project's net public welfare effects.
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Deceptive Presentation Adverse Impact Non-Concealment City X
type: Client-RetainedPresenterPublicWelfareImpactNon-ConcealmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront
casecontext: Engineer A presented environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion without volunteering adverse impacts; the Board found this permissible because the presentation did not cross the line into affirmative concealment or artful misleading, and other witnesses provided the adverse impact information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from structuring his presentation to the City Planning Board in a manner that affirmatively concealed or created a false impression about the known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development, even if he was not required to volunteer such information proactively.
sourcetext: While it might be easier if environmental issues could be resolved in a clear and objective manner, in fact, many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
textreferences: While it might be easier if environmental issues could be resolved in a clear and objective manner, in fact, many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations.
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.768119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Non-Deceptive Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Environmental Benefit vs. Traffic and Pollution Tradeoff in Waterfront Development
casecontext: Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the waterfront development project before the City Planning Board without volunteering known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The multi-witness hearing structure allowed other engineers to supply this adverse impact information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, while permissibly emphasizing the waterfront development's environmental benefits (conversion of industrial waterfront to parkland) consistent with Developer F's interests, was obligated to ensure that this selective emphasis did not create a materially false or deceptive impression about the project's overall public welfare effects — specifically, that the presentation did not affirmatively suppress or misrepresent the known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
sourcetext: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
temporalscope: During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
textreferences: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.372336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Relevance Judgment Traffic Noise Air Pollution City X Hearing
type: ProfessionalJudgmentRelevance-ConditionedVoluntaryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Selective Testimony Completeness in Public Presentation
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presented the waterfront development design at the City X Planning Board public hearing, highlighting environmental benefits of converting an industrial waterfront to commercial use, without volunteering known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City X Public Hearing
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Professional Judgment Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development to the City Planning Board if and only if his professional judgment determined that such information was 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter; he was not required to volunteer this information if, in his professional judgment, it was not relevant and pertinent.
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Retained Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefit Non-Deceptive Presentation Developer F
type: RetainedEngineerSelectiveEmphasisEnvironmentalBenefitNon-DeceptivePresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Awareness of Undisclosed Development Impacts
casecontext: Engineer A presents the waterfront development project by highlighting the environmental benefit of converting industrial waterfront to parkland, while not volunteering known adverse impacts. The presentation is selective but not affirmatively deceptive, and the multi-witness hearing process supplies the missing adverse impact information through other engineers.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Applied to Engineer A's Client-Retained Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Retained Engineer Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefit Non-Deceptive Presentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that selective emphasis on the environmental benefits of converting the industrial waterfront to parkland did not create a materially false or deceptive impression about the project's overall public welfare effects, including known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation to the City Planning Board
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.367594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Retained by Developer F
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention through at least the public hearing presentation
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Professional relationship between Engineer A and Developer F
terminatedby: Not indicated in the case text
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
triggeringevent: Developer F retains Engineer A for the major waterfront development project
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.359483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Permissibility Boundary Developer F Hearing
type: FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Environmental Benefit vs. Traffic and Pollution Tradeoff in Waterfront Development
casecontext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to parkland, while not volunteering known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The presentation is selective but not affirmatively deceptive, and other engineers later testify about the adverse impacts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that selective emphasis on the environmental benefits of the waterfront development did not cross the boundary into affirmative misrepresentation or suppression of material adverse public welfare impacts, and that the presentation as a whole did not leave the City Planning Board with a materially false impression of the project's net effects.
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation to the City Planning Board
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.366317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Testimony at Planning Board Hearing
type: SelectiveTestimonyCompletenessJudgmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A begins the public hearing presentation through the conclusion of testimony, persisting as an ethical evaluation condition thereafter
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: City X public
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Other hearing witnesses
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
stateclass: Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
subject: Engineer A's presentation to City X Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
terminatedby: Other witnesses (including other engineers) subsequently testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues, completing the public record
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues
textreferences: it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
textreferences: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
triggeringevent: Engineer A presents the waterfront development design at the public hearing, highlighting environmental benefits while being aware of but not volunteering information about traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.757840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2
type: TownEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Landfill Design BER 79-2
adheres to principle: Public Policy Open Debate Resolution — BER 79-2 Landfill Controversy
has obligation: Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Design Professional Judgment Trade-Off
has obligation: Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Municipal engineering, landfill design', 'employer': 'Town government'}
caseinvolvement: Town engineer who collaborated with a consulting engineer retained by the town council to study and redesign the existing sanitary landfill, ultimately producing a design with higher final contours accepted by the town council.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Town Council'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_challenge', 'target': 'Engineer C Resident Challenger BER 79-2'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Town Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill.
textreferences: Engineer A and Engineer B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill.
textreferences: Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted at the present rate of use in three years
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.756181
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure Relevance Determination
type: Third-PartyEnvironmentalImpactDisclosureRelevanceContestedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's awareness of the traffic/noise/air pollution impacts through completion of the public presentation
affectedparties: Affected third parties (traffic/noise/pollution impacts)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public body receiving testimony
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
stateclass: Third-Party Environmental Impact Disclosure Relevance Contested State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to determine whether anticipated traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts from a commercial development are 'relevant and pertinent' information requiring disclosure in a public body presentation
terminatedby: Engineer A's professional judgment determination on relevance and completion of the public presentation
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
triggeringevent: Engineer A's knowledge that the anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, noise, and air pollution, combined with a presentation obligation before a public body
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.757256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Among Engineers Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Multiple engineers reaching different conclusions at the same public hearing
appliedto: Waterfront development traffic, noise, and air pollution impact disclosure question
balancingwith: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied the BER 65-9 and BER 79-2 precedents to the present case to establish that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts — including whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' — and that the other hearing engineers' independent testimony about those impacts did not render Engineer A's non-disclosure unethical.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The fact that other engineers at the hearing testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts does not mean Engineer A was obligated to do so; the public hearing process accommodates multiple engineers reaching different conclusions about what is relevant and pertinent.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
invokedby: Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by holding that the public hearing process itself — with multiple witnesses — supplies the information that any single engineer may not volunteer, so Engineer A's non-disclosure was not unethical given his professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent.
textreferences: That … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
textreferences: The Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
textreferences: While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.765955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Known Adverse Impacts Not Proactively Disclosed to Planning Board
type: UndisclosedRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's awareness of adverse impacts through the public hearing, until other witnesses raise the issues
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public/Community members
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
stateclass: Undisclosed Risk State
subject: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts from the development
terminatedby: Other witnesses testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues at the same hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
textreferences: the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
triggeringevent: Engineer A is aware that the commercial development will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution but does not volunteer this information during testimony
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.359656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Multi-Engineer Testimony on Omitted Adverse Impacts at Public Hearing
type: ProfessionalOpinionConflictatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point other witnesses testify about traffic, noise, and air pollution through the close of the public hearing
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Other engineers testifying
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
stateclass: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
subject: Divergence between Engineer A's selective presentation and subsequent testimony by other engineers on adverse impacts
terminatedby: Conclusion of the public hearing
textreferences: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
triggeringevent: Other engineers and witnesses testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues that Engineer A did not volunteer
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.360012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Present Case Environmental Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment
type: ProfessionalJudgmentEnvironmentalTrade-OffFinalArbiterObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Present Case Precedent Distinguishing from BER 65-9 and 79-2
casecontext: The Board applied the lessons of BER 65-9 and 79-2 to the present case, noting that environmental and public welfare considerations are often subject to varying arguments reflecting differing considerations and interests, and that many important public policy questions are the result of subjective policy considerations.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Subjective Policy Balancing Acknowledgment — Present Case Environmental Impacts
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
obligationclass: Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Final Arbiter Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, in evaluating and presenting the waterfront development project, was obligated to recognize that the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — like the environmental trade-offs in BER 65-9 and 79-2 — are the kind of important public policy questions that result from subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations, not admitting of a single objectively correct answer, and that professional judgment must serve as the arbiter of the appropriate balance.
sourcetext: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
temporalscope: Throughout the project design and public hearing presentation
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
textreferences: While it might be easier if environmental issues could be resolved in a clear and objective manner, in fact, many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.372845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Tension Invoked by Engineer A's Non-Volunteering of Adverse Impacts
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — and non-disclosure of these to the City Planning Board without being asked — raises the question of whether proactive risk disclosure to the regulatory body and affected public was required, even in the absence of a direct question.
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive risk disclosure would ordinarily require Engineer A to volunteer known adverse impacts to the regulatory body and affected community; however, in the public hearing context, this obligation is modulated by the relevance and pertinence standard and the multi-witness structure that supplies the omitted information.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
tensionresolution: The proactive disclosure obligation is contextually satisfied by the hearing process; because other witnesses supply the adverse information, Engineer A's non-volunteering does not leave the Planning Board without the information needed for an informed decision.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.365948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Professional Opinion Divergence at City X Planning Board Hearing
type: ProfessionalOpinionConflictatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point other engineers testify at the same hearing, presenting information not covered by Engineer A
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: City X public
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Other engineers at hearing
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:22.653327+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
stateclass: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
subject: Divergence between Engineer A's presentation and subsequent testimony by other engineers on traffic, noise, and air pollution
terminatedby: Conclusion of the public hearing
textreferences: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
triggeringevent: Other engineers attending the public hearing testify about increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues that Engineer A did not volunteer
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.758473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Invoked by Engineer A
type: RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation role at City Planning Board hearing on behalf of Developer F
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing — simultaneously serving as Developer F's professional representative (emphasizing environmental benefits) and as a technically responsible professional whose statements carry independent credibility before the public body — and navigates this dual character by presenting truthfully without affirmative misrepresentation, while not volunteering adverse information that other witnesses subsequently supply.
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The hybrid advocacy-objectivity role permits Engineer A to emphasize favorable project aspects for the client while not requiring proactive disclosure of all known adverse impacts, provided the engineer answers questions truthfully and the hearing process supplies the omitted information through other participants.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X. Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
tensionresolution: The balance is struck by Engineer A's truthful responsiveness to questions, the absence of affirmative misrepresentation, and the multi-witness hearing structure that supplies completeness; the retained advocacy role does not override professional objectivity obligations but contextually modulates the proactive disclosure threshold.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.365345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Judgment Objectivity Relevance Determination City X
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingEngineerAdverseImpactConditionalDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Retained by Developer F
casecontext: Engineer A presented the waterfront development at the City X Planning Board hearing; the Board's analysis turned on whether the adverse impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' under Engineer A's professional judgment, and found that Engineer A was not ethically required to disclose them if his professional judgment determined they were not relevant and pertinent.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation Engineer A Waterfront Development Presentation
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Applied to Engineer A's Client-Retained Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Engineer Adverse Impact Conditional Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to make his professional judgment determination about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing objectively and in good faith — not driven by Developer F's interest in suppressing adverse information — and to disclose those impacts if his honest professional judgment identified them as relevant and pertinent.
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
temporalscope: Prior to and during the public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.768533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution BER Present Case
type: RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Known Adverse Impacts Not Proactively Disclosed to Planning Board
defeasible under: Multi-Engineer Testimony on Omitted Adverse Impacts at Public Hearing
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F to present a major waterfront development project at a City X public hearing before the City Planning Board. Engineer A highlights environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland but does not volunteer known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts when not directly questioned.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard — Present Case Traffic/Noise/Air Pollution
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings
obligationstatement: Engineer A, presenting the waterfront development to the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F, was obligated to exercise professional judgment about which information was relevant and pertinent to volunteer — and was not required to volunteer known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts when not directly questioned, provided all direct questions were answered honestly.
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer Public Testimony Heightened Obligation — Present Case
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyRoleandObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation of the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present a waterfront development project before the City Planning Board, bears a heightened ethical obligation because engineers' technical testimony has disproportionate influence on public policy decisions affecting health, safety, and welfare.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle applies to Engineer A's dual status as retained advocate and technically credible professional: the public body and the public rely on engineers' technical expertise, elevating the ethical stakes of what Engineer A chooses to present or omit.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
tensionresolution: The heightened obligation is satisfied when the engineer applies genuine professional judgment to the relevance-and-pertinence determination, rather than defaulting to client preference.
textreferences: Because of the effect that their testimony may have on public policy discussions of this type, engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people's lives.
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.369954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Invoked by Engineer A at Planning Board
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyRoleandObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer presenting before the City Planning Board, bears a heightened obligation to perform the testimony role consistently with professional ethics — because the Board and public rely on the engineer's technical expertise and professional credibility in evaluating the waterfront development project.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public testimony role obligates Engineer A to be truthful and complete in responses to questions, and to refrain from affirmative misrepresentation; it does not necessarily require Engineer A to volunteer all known adverse information beyond what is relevant and pertinent in the hearing context.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
sourcetext: As part of the process for approving Developer F's project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board.
tensionresolution: Engineer A satisfies the testimony role obligation by answering questions truthfully and completely; the non-volunteering of adverse information is evaluated under the relevance and pertinence standard applicable to public hearings.
textreferences: As part of the process for approving Developer F's project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.364691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Honest Engineer Disagreement Permissibility BER 65-9 Highway Routes
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Proposal of alternative Route D
appliedto: State highway department cost estimates for interstate bypass routes
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The consulting engineer's public letter disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing a fourth route was held ethically permissible because honest differences of professional opinion on the same facts are a normal feature of engineering practice.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The fact that the consulting engineer's conclusions differed from the highway department engineers' conclusions did not constitute an ethical violation by either party; both were exercising honest professional judgment on the same factual record.
invokedby: Consulting Firm Principal Highway Route Critic BER 65-9
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route, the Board noted that the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
tensionresolution: The Board found the disagreement ethically permissible because it was grounded in honest professional judgment and engaged with the full factual record, not in self-interest or incomplete knowledge.
textreferences: Engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: The fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.765444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Landfill BER 79-2
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebateOpenResolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Landfill higher-contour design public controversy
appliedto: Town council's authority to resolve the design dispute
balancingwith: Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's public challenge to the landfill design was held ethical as a contribution to open public debate; the Board held that if the appropriate public authority decided to proceed after hearing all views, all engineers involved would have acted in conformance with the code.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineering decisions in the public arena are legitimately subject to open public debate; the appropriate public authority — not engineering consensus — is the proper locus of final resolution, and engineers who contribute honest perspectives to that debate act ethically regardless of the outcome.
invokedby: Engineer C Resident Challenger BER 79-2
principleclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
sourcetext: With regard to Engineer C's actions, the Board found that 'these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority. Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.'
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by affirming that both the engineers who designed the landfill and the engineer who challenged it acted ethically, because the public debate process — not any single engineering judgment — is the proper resolution mechanism for contested public policy engineering decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
textreferences: If, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
textreferences: These decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.765786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Policy Open Debate Resolution — BER 79-2 Landfill Controversy
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebateOpenResolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public controversy over the higher-contour landfill design and methane/groundwater safety concerns
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The landfill expansion controversy — involving conflicting engineering opinions about environmental soundness — was properly subject to open public debate and resolution by the appropriate public authority (the town council), not by engineering consensus; all engineers involved acted ethically regardless of which design position ultimately prevailed.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle protects both the design engineers' right to proceed with the approved design and Engineer C's right to publicly challenge it, because the public arena is the appropriate forum for resolving such policy-laden engineering disputes.
invokedby: Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer
invokedby: Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer
invokedby: Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger
principleclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
sourcetext: these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
tensionresolution: The principle dissolves the apparent ethical conflict between the competing engineering positions by relocating final authority to the public body.
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
textreferences: these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.370680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Public Hearing Technical Testimony
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board regulatory decision on waterfront development
appliedto: Public health, safety, and welfare implications of commercial development
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's analysis of engineers' obligations when testifying before public bodies was grounded in the fundamental principle that engineers' technical expertise must be deployed in service of public health, safety, and welfare — which is why the ethical standards governing public testimony are calibrated to ensure the public decision-making process receives the information it needs.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public welfare paramount principle underlies the entire analysis of engineers' public testimony obligations: the reason engineers must be truthful, complete, and objective in public testimony is that public regulatory bodies rely on that testimony to protect the welfare of community members who have no other voice in the technical aspects of the decision.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
invokedby: Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
tensionresolution: The Board balanced public welfare against faithful agent obligations by holding that the public hearing process as a whole — not any single engineer's presentation — is the mechanism for ensuring public welfare is protected, and that Engineer A's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence was a legitimate exercise of the discretion the code affords.
textreferences: Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people's lives.
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.766939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City Planning Board Hearing
type: RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, highlighting environmental benefits but not volunteering known information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors and judged them not to require proactive disclosure in the public hearing context.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this public hearing context, Engineer A's omission of traffic and pollution impacts — while knowing them — is evaluated under the 'relevant and pertinent' standard: because the public hearing process itself (through other witnesses including engineers) supplied this information to the Planning Board, Engineer A's non-volunteering does not necessarily constitute an ethical violation, provided Engineer A would have answered truthfully if questioned.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact. Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
tensionresolution: The principle resolves the tension by distinguishing between the completeness obligation in private advisory reports (where the engineer is the sole information source) and public hearings (where the adversarial multi-witness process supplies completeness); Engineer A's conditional willingness to answer if questioned supports the conclusion that no deceptive intent was present.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.363508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Subjective Policy Balancing Acknowledgment — Present Case Environmental Impacts
type: ProfessionalJudgmentasFinalArbiterinEnvironmentalTrade-OffDecisions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development are relevant and pertinent for disclosure at the City Planning Board hearing
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development are the kind of environmental and public policy questions that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis — they involve subjective policy considerations — such that Engineer A's professional judgment about their relevance and pertinence is the ethically appropriate decision mechanism.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board draws on BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 to establish that environmental impact questions in public policy contexts are inherently subject to varying arguments and subjective considerations, reinforcing that Engineer A's professional judgment — not a mechanical rule — governs the disclosure determination.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
sourcetext: While it might be easier if environmental issues could be resolved in a clear and objective manner, in fact, many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations.
tensionresolution: Professional judgment is the final arbiter; the Board does not resolve whether the impacts are in fact relevant and pertinent, but confirms that Engineer A's good-faith judgment on that question is the ethically operative standard.
textreferences: As the previous cases demonstrated engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
textreferences: While it might be easier if environmental issues could be resolved in a clear and objective manner, in fact, many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.371376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Development Hearing
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
casecontext: Engineer A's presentation emphasizes environmental benefits without volunteering adverse impacts; the ethical question is whether this selective emphasis constitutes artful misleading or permissible advocacy. The case facts suggest the presentation was not artfully misleading because Engineer A would have answered directly if questioned and other engineers supplied the missing information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making statements or structuring the presentation in a manner that was technically accurate but designed to mislead the City Planning Board by obscuring the existence of known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts through selective omission.
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation to the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.366789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
type: Client-RetainedPresenterPublicWelfareImpactNon-ConcealmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
casecontext: Engineer A presents environmental benefits of the waterfront development without volunteering adverse impacts; the presentation is selective but does not appear to affirmatively conceal or misrepresent the adverse impacts, and other engineers supply this information at the same hearing.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Assessed in City X Waterfront Hearing Context
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from structuring the presentation in a manner that affirmatively concealed or created a false impression about known adverse public welfare impacts — including traffic, noise, and air pollution — even while not being required to volunteer such information proactively.
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation to the City Planning Board
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.366635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
type: RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Selective Testimony at Planning Board Hearing
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, exercises judgment about what information to present at the City Planning Board hearing, choosing to highlight environmental benefits and not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts that were not directly questioned.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City Planning Board Hearing
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to volunteer only information that professional judgment identified as relevant and pertinent, without being required to volunteer all information possessed about the project.
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
temporalscope: In preparing and delivering the public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.366484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Challenge Post-Decision Acceptance
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebatePost-DecisionAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Controversy
casecontext: Engineer C, a town resident, publicly contended that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater pollution; the Board found both Engineer C's challenge and Engineers A and B's design approach to be ethical, and held that conflicting public views between engineers should be of no concern.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Landfill BER 79-2
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer C (BER 79-2 resident challenger)
obligationclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, having publicly challenged the higher-level landfill design as environmentally unsound, was obligated to accept — after due consideration of all views by the appropriate public authority — that Engineers A and B had acted in conformance with the code of ethics, and to refrain from treating the public authority's decision to proceed as an ethical indictment of Engineers A and B.
sourcetext: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
temporalscope: After the appropriate public authority's decision on the landfill design
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
textreferences: these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.768400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment of Engineers A and B
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebatePost-DecisionAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
casecontext: BER Case No. 79-2: Engineer C publicly contended that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater pollution, stirring considerable local controversy.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Public Policy Open Debate Resolution — BER 79-2 Landfill Controversy
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer C (resident engineer challenger) in BER 79-2
obligationclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, having publicly challenged the landfill expansion design as environmentally unsound, was obligated — after the appropriate public authority considered all views and reached a decision — to accept that Engineers A and B had acted in conformance with the code of ethics, and to refrain from treating the outcome as an ethical indictment of their professional judgment.
sourcetext: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
temporalscope: After the public authority's decision on the landfill expansion design
textreferences: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
textreferences: if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.372032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer Public Testimony Role Present Case City Planning Board Hearing
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyRoleandObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development
appliedto: Developer F's commercial development project presentation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, presenting at the City Planning Board hearing as Developer F's retained engineer, bore a heightened ethical obligation to perform his testimony consistently with the NSPE Code of Ethics because his technical expertise gave his presentation disproportionate influence on the Board's regulatory decision.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's role as technical expert before a public regulatory body creates a special obligation of honesty, objectivity, and completeness that goes beyond ordinary client representation, because the public body relies on the engineer's expertise to make informed regulatory decisions.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
principleclass: Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people's lives.
tensionresolution: The Board navigated this tension by holding that Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Developer F did not require him to suppress relevant information, while his public testimony obligation did not require him to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent — the two obligations were reconciled through the professional judgment standard.
textreferences: Because of the effect that their testimony may have on public policy discussions of this type, engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people's lives.
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.766441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Environmental Benefit vs. Traffic and Pollution Tradeoff in Waterfront Development
type: CompetingPublicGoodsTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the public hearing and planning process
affectedparties: City X Planning Board
affectedparties: Developer F
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public/Community members
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:36:09.927825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
stateclass: Competing Public Goods Tension State
subject: The waterfront development project's dual nature — environmental improvement and commercial-use adverse impacts
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case text; planning board decision pending
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
textreferences: it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
triggeringevent: Engineer A presents environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland while being aware of countervailing commercial development impacts
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.359822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 79-2 Landfill Design Dispute
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public contention that the higher-level landfill design concept was environmentally unsound
balancingwith: Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
balancingwith: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's public challenge to Engineers A and B's landfill expansion design — contending it was environmentally unsound due to methane migration and groundwater pollution — was ethically permissible as an honest professional disagreement, even though Engineers A and B had also acted ethically in preparing the design.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Both the design engineers and the challenger acted ethically because the environmental trade-off question admitted of no single correct answer; conflicting public views between engineers on such matters are not an ethical concern.
invokedby: Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
tensionresolution: The principle resolves the apparent conflict by affirming that both positions can be ethically held simultaneously; the public authority, not engineering consensus, resolves the policy question.
textreferences: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
textreferences: That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
textreferences: while certainly Engineers A and B should consider the technical data each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.370315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Honesty Obligation Engineer A City Planning Board Presentation
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing presentation
appliedto: Responses to Board questions about the waterfront development
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board was required to be truthful and non-deceptive; while he was not obligated to volunteer information he judged not relevant and pertinent, he was obligated to answer all questions posed to him completely and truthfully.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The honesty obligation operates as a floor constraint on the relevance and pertinence standard: even if an engineer need not volunteer certain information, the engineer must not be deceptive or misleading in what is presented, and must answer all questions truthfully and completely.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
tensionresolution: The honesty obligation and the relevance and pertinence standard are complementary rather than conflicting: the former governs the quality of what is disclosed, while the latter governs the scope of what must be voluntarily disclosed.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: Engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Objectivity Obligation Engineer A Waterfront Development Presentation
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Professional judgment determination of relevance and pertinence of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional judgment about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' was required to be based on objective technical assessment rather than on Developer F's commercial interests or Engineer A's self-interest in maintaining the client relationship.
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The objectivity principle constrains the exercise of professional judgment under the relevance and pertinence standard: Engineer A's judgment about what to disclose must be genuinely objective, not a rationalization for suppressing information unfavorable to the client.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
tensionresolution: The Board's holding that Engineer A's professional judgment was the operative standard implicitly required that judgment to be objective; a judgment motivated by client interest rather than technical assessment would not satisfy the ethical standard.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: Engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Professional Judgment as Environmental Trade-Off Arbiter — BER 79-2 Landfill
type: ProfessionalJudgmentasFinalArbiterinEnvironmentalTrade-OffDecisions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Design of landfill expansion to higher final contours with minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineers A and B's decision to prepare the higher-contour landfill design — balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against methane and groundwater risks — was ethically grounded in professional judgment about the best balance between societal needs and unavoidable environmental degradation.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When no finite answer exists to the environmental trade-off, professional judgment — exercised in compliance with state environmental laws and after multiple redesigns — is the ethically appropriate decision mechanism.
invokedby: Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer
invokedby: Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer
principleclass: Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
sourcetext: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
tensionresolution: Professional judgment is the final arbiter; the engineers acted ethically by exercising that judgment in good faith even though Engineer C reached a different conclusion.
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
textreferences: while certainly Engineers A and B should consider the technical data each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.370487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism Invoked in Developer F Hearing
type: PublicHearingMulti-WitnessProcessasInstitutionalCompletenessMechanism
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development project
balancingwith: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
balancingwith: Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board hearing's multi-witness structure — in which Engineer A presents the project's benefits and other engineers independently testify about adverse traffic, noise, and pollution impacts — functions as the institutional mechanism ensuring the Board receives complete information, mitigating the ethical weight of Engineer A's individual non-disclosure.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The institutional completeness mechanism principle supports the conclusion that Engineer A's non-volunteering of adverse impacts is ethically acceptable because the hearing process itself — through independent witnesses including other engineers — supplies the Planning Board with the information needed for an informed decision.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
invokedby: Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
tensionresolution: The multi-witness hearing structure resolves the tension between Engineer A's retained advocacy role and the public body's need for complete information; the institutional process, not the individual retained engineer, bears primary responsibility for completeness in adversarial public hearings.
textreferences: As part of the process for approving Developer F's project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.365545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
type: RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's project
appliedto: Noise and air pollution impacts of waterfront development
appliedto: Traffic increase impact of waterfront development
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
balancingwith: Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was not ethically required to voluntarily disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development at the City Planning Board hearing because, in his professional judgment, those impacts were not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter — and other engineers at the hearing independently provided that information.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical obligation to disclose information at a public hearing is calibrated to the engineer's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence; information that the engineer in good faith judges to be outside the hearing's scope need not be volunteered, though it must be disclosed if asked.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
principleclass: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
sourcetext: In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
tensionresolution: The Board held that Engineer A's professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent was the operative ethical standard; the presence of other witnesses who did provide that information confirmed that the public hearing process as a whole supplied the decision-maker with the necessary information.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
textreferences: The question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.766143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony Invoked by Engineer A's Conditional Disclosure Willingness
type: CompletenessinResponsiveTechnicalTestimony
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's responsive testimony before City Planning Board
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's stated willingness to provide complete testimony about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts if questioned demonstrates that the completeness obligation in responsive testimony is acknowledged — Engineer A would not have evaded or minimized these issues if directly asked by the City Planning Board.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The completeness obligation in responsive testimony is satisfied by Engineer A's commitment to full disclosure when questioned; the ethical question is whether this satisfies the broader disclosure obligation or whether proactive volunteering was also required.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony
sourcetext: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
tensionresolution: Completeness in responsive testimony is fully satisfied; the residual question about proactive disclosure is resolved by the relevance and pertinence standard and the multi-witness hearing structure.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.364908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Disclosure Willingness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingEngineerAdverseImpactConditionalDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Developer F Waterfront
defeasible under: Known Adverse Impacts Not Proactively Disclosed to Planning Board
casecontext: Engineer A knows of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts from the commercial development but does not volunteer them; however, Engineer A would have answered completely if the City Planning Board had asked directly.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony Invoked by Engineer A's Conditional Disclosure Willingness
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Engineer Adverse Impact Conditional Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose known adverse impacts — including traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution — to the City Planning Board if directly questioned, and this conditional obligation was satisfied by Engineer A's stated willingness to provide complete testimony if questioned.
sourcetext: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
temporalscope: Throughout the public hearing, contingent on direct questioning by the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.362201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer City Planning Board
type: PublicHearingPresenterDirectQuestionCompleteandHonestAnswerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
casecontext: Engineer A presented the waterfront development at the City X Planning Board hearing; the Board questioned Engineer A and ultimately received information about adverse impacts from other witnesses; Engineer A's obligation to answer direct questions completely was non-defeasible.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Hearing Presenter Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to answer all direct questions posed by the City Planning Board completely and honestly, without evasion or material omission, regardless of whether the subject matter was adverse to Developer F's interests.
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
temporalscope: During and throughout the public hearing before the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Developer F Waterfront
type: Multi-WitnessHearingProcessInstitutionalRelianceNon-VolunteeringPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Conditional Disclosure Willingness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
defeasible under: Professional Opinion Divergence at City X Planning Board Hearing
casecontext: The City Planning Board hearing includes multiple witnesses: Engineer A presents environmental benefits on behalf of Developer F, while other engineers independently testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The multi-witness structure ensures the Board receives complete information even though Engineer A did not volunteer the adverse impacts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism Invoked in Developer F Hearing
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-Witness Hearing Process Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was permitted to rely on the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing — in which other engineers independently testified about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — as an institutional completeness mechanism that partially satisfied the public's interest in complete information, thereby modulating Engineer A's individual proactive disclosure duty, provided Engineer A did not affirmatively suppress or misrepresent such information and answered all direct questions completely.
sourcetext: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
temporalscope: During and after the public hearing before the City Planning Board
textreferences: As part of the process for approving Developer F's project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.367441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer A Developer F Waterfront Development
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing
appliedto: Developer F's waterfront development project presentation
balancingwith: Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development design at the City Planning Board hearing, acted as Developer F's faithful agent by presenting the project's design features — while retaining the professional authority to exercise independent judgment about what information was relevant and pertinent to disclose.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation required Engineer A to diligently present Developer F's project, but did not require him to suppress information that was relevant and pertinent, and did not override his independent professional judgment about the scope of required disclosure.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
tensionresolution: The Board held that the faithful agent obligation and the public testimony obligation were reconciled through the professional judgment standard: Engineer A fulfilled his faithful agent role by presenting the project, and his professional judgment about relevance and pertinence defined the outer boundary of his disclosure obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: Engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.766755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as Developer F's Retained Engineer
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation role at City Planning Board hearing on behalf of Developer F
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the project in a manner that emphasizes its environmental benefits — consistent with the client's interest in project approval — while not actively misrepresenting the project's adverse impacts and remaining willing to answer questions truthfully.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:40:19.193187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation permits Engineer A to present the project favorably on behalf of Developer F, but does not authorize affirmative deception or suppression of material adverse facts that the Planning Board would need for an informed decision; the ethical limits are tested by whether the omission of traffic and pollution data crosses from permissible advocacy into impermissible deception.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent role is satisfied within ethical limits because Engineer A did not affirmatively misrepresent the adverse impacts, would have answered truthfully if questioned, and the hearing process supplied the omitted information through other witnesses.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.363901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 65-9 Highway Route Dispute
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public letter criticizing highway department route B cost estimates and proposing alternative route D
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The consulting firm principal's public disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendation for the interstate bypass was ethically permissible because engineers can legitimately reach different conclusions from the same technical facts.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Disagreement with another engineer's cost estimates and route selection is not objectionable per se; the principle protects the space for legitimate professional dissent in public technical debates.
invokedby: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
tensionresolution: Disagreement is permissible when grounded in professional analysis of the same facts, not in competitive self-interest or personal attack.
textreferences: Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.370146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness — Present Case City Planning Board
type: PublicHearingMulti-WitnessProcessasInstitutionalCompletenessMechanism
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Planning Board public hearing on the proposed waterfront commercial development
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
balancingwith: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development included testimony from multiple witnesses — Engineer A (retained by developer), other independent engineers raising traffic/noise/air pollution concerns, and public participants — such that the adversarial multi-witness structure functioned as an institutional mechanism ensuring the Board received complete information even if Engineer A did not proactively disclose all adverse impacts.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The presence of independent engineers who testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts demonstrates the institutional completeness mechanism operating as intended — partially relieving Engineer A of the full proactive disclosure burden that would apply in a non-adversarial advisory context.
invokedby: City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
invokedby: Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
sourcetext: Other engineers attending the public hearing provided testimony about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues associated with the proposed development.
tensionresolution: The multi-witness process does not eliminate Engineer A's disclosure obligation for relevant and pertinent information, but it contextualizes that obligation within an institutional framework designed to surface adverse information through multiple channels.
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
textreferences: Other engineers attending the public hearing provided testimony about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues associated with the proposed development.
textreferences: the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.371211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Applied to Engineer A's Client-Retained Presentation
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's technical presentation before the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development emphasizing environmental benefits while not volunteering adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — raising the question of whether client retention has compromised the objectivity of Engineer A's presentation before the City Planning Board.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The objectivity principle is not violated in this case because Engineer A's selective emphasis reflects the legitimate role of a retained engineer presenting a client's project, provided the presentation does not contain false or misleading technical claims. The objectivity standard in the context of a public hearing with multiple witnesses is satisfied when the engineer presents accurate information and is prepared to answer all questions truthfully.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
tensionresolution: Objectivity in the public hearing context does not require neutrality equivalent to an independent reviewer; a retained engineer may present the client's project favorably while maintaining objectivity by ensuring all representations are technically accurate and all questions are answered completely.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Landfill Design BER 79-2
type: ProfessionalJudgmentasFinalArbiterinEnvironmentalTrade-OffDecisions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Balancing landfill capacity need against methane gas migration and groundwater pollution risks
appliedto: Sanitary landfill redesign to higher final contours
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineers A and B exercised professional judgment to balance the town's need for landfill capacity against environmental risks, arriving at a higher-contour design that satisfied state environmental law; the Board held this judgment-based balancing to be ethically sound even though Engineer C reached a different conclusion.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When there is no finite answer to the environmental trade-off involved in a public infrastructure project, professional engineering judgment serves as the final arbiter of the appropriate balance between societal needs and environmental degradation.
invokedby: Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2
invokedby: Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2
principleclass: Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
sourcetext: The Board noted that 'there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.' The Board said, 'professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.'
tensionresolution: The Board held that both Engineers A and B (who proceeded with the design) and Engineer C (who challenged it) acted ethically, because the trade-off admitted no single correct answer and each engineer exercised honest professional judgment.
textreferences: Each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment.
textreferences: Professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
textreferences: There is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.765620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
type: CityPlanningBoardRegulatoryAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Present Case From BER 65-9 and 79-2
adheres to principle: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Invoked for City Planning Board
adheres to principle: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Tension at City X Public Hearing
adheres to principle: Informed Decision Making Enablement City Planning Board Waterfront Development
adheres to principle: Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness — Present Case City Planning Board
adheres to principle: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism Invoked in Developer F Hearing
adheres to principle: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Invoked in Waterfront Development Hearing
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Waterfront Development Hearing
attributes: {'jurisdiction': 'City X', 'function': 'Development project approval via public hearing'}
caseinvolvement: The municipal regulatory body before which Engineer A presents the waterfront development design. The Board questions Engineer A and ultimately receives testimony from other witnesses about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts not volunteered by Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Other Hearing Witnesses'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Developer F'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
sourcetext: present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board
textreferences: present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
textreferences: responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Code Conformance Public Testimony Waterfront Development
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Developer F to present a major waterfront development project to the City Planning Board at a public hearing, highlighting environmental benefits while being aware of adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineer Public Testimony Heightened Obligation — Present Case
derived from principle: Engineer Public Testimony Role Present Case City Planning Board Hearing
derived from principle: Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Invoked by Engineer A at Planning Board
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (retained by Developer F)
obligationclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer testifying before the City Planning Board on the waterfront development project, was obligated to perform all aspects of that testimony in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, given the potential effect of engineering testimony on public policy decisions affecting public health, safety, and welfare.
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
temporalscope: Throughout the public hearing presentation and any subsequent testimony
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.371522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering
type: Multi-WitnessHearingProcessInstitutionalRelianceNon-VolunteeringPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Professional Judgment Exercise
defeasible under: Professional Opinion Divergence at City X Planning Board Hearing
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
casecontext: The City Planning Board hearing included testimony from multiple witnesses: Engineer A (presenting project benefits for Developer F), other engineers (testifying about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts), and the City Planning Board itself (asking questions). This multi-witness structure provided an institutional mechanism for complete information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness — Present Case City Planning Board
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
obligationclass: Multi-Witness Hearing Process Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was permitted to rely on the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing — in which other independent engineers testified about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts — as an institutional completeness mechanism that partially satisfied the public's interest in complete information, thereby modulating Engineer A's individual proactive disclosure duty, provided Engineer A did not affirmatively suppress or misrepresent such information and answered all direct questions completely and honestly.
sourcetext: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
temporalscope: During the City Planning Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.372506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Professional Judgment Exercise
type: RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering
defeasible under: Engineer A Client Relationship with Developer F
defeasible under: Engineer A Commercial Development Disclosure Threshold
casecontext: Engineer A faced the ethical question of whether to volunteer known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts at the City Planning Board hearing, requiring a professional judgment determination about relevance and pertinence.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
obligationclass: Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to exercise objective professional judgment to determine whether the anticipated traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to volunteer only that information which that professional judgment identified as relevant and pertinent — without being required to volunteer all information possessed about the project, provided all direct questions were answered completely and honestly.
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
temporalscope: In preparation for and during the City Planning Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.372673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Technical Testimony Public Welfare Role City X
type: EthicalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A presented the waterfront development design at the City X Planning Board public hearing, playing an important role in informing the regulatory body's decision on a matter affecting the public health, safety, and welfare of City X residents.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Assessed in City X Waterfront Hearing Context
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Ethical Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer testifying before the City Planning Board on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare, was obligated to perform his obligations in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, bringing an important technical perspective to the public policy discussion while serving both his client's interests and the public welfare within the bounds of professional ethics.
sourcetext: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people's lives.
textreferences: Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.769334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Assessed in City X Waterfront Hearing Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X residents affected by traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts on City X residents — who are third parties to the developer-engineer relationship — raises the question of whether the paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to volunteer this information even without being asked.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the public welfare principle does not require Engineer A to volunteer adverse information because: (a) the impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution) do not rise to the level of an imminent safety hazard requiring mandatory disclosure, and (b) the public hearing process itself — with other witnesses supplying the adverse information — adequately protects the public interest. The principle is satisfied by the hearing structure rather than requiring individual engineer disclosure.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
invokedby: Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
tensionresolution: The public welfare concern is addressed through the hearing process: other witnesses testify about the adverse impacts, ensuring the City Planning Board receives the information needed to protect the public interest. Engineer A's non-disclosure does not undermine public welfare because the hearing structure compensates.
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.761905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability
type: HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Disagreement Public Letter
defeasible under: Highway Route Alternative Proposal Public Disagreement
casecontext: BER Case No. 65-9: A consulting engineer published a letter disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendation for an interstate bypass, proposing a superior fourth route.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 65-9 Highway Route Dispute
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER 65-9)
obligationclass: Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: The consulting firm principal who publicly disagreed with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposed an alternative route D was acting within ethical bounds, as honest professional disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other qualified engineers is not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
sourcetext: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
temporalscope: At the time of public letter publication
textreferences: In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.371680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Disagreement Public Letter
type: HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability
defeasible under: BER 65-9 Highway Route Public Disagreement
casecontext: A consulting firm principal who had performed work on a portion of the interstate highway issued a public letter disagreeing with the highway department's cost estimates and proposing Route D as superior to the department's preferred Route B.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honest Engineer Disagreement Permissibility BER 65-9 Highway Routes
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER 65-9)
obligationclass: Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: The consulting firm principal was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly expressing disagreement with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposing a fourth alternative route, because honest professional disagreement among qualified engineers on public policy engineering matters is not an ethical violation.
sourcetext: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
temporalscope: At the time of public letter publication in the local press
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
textreferences: engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts
textreferences: the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.768258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingEngineerAdverseImpactConditionalDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presented the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, emphasizing environmental benefits (conversion of industrial waterfront to parkland) while being aware of anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution. Other engineers at the hearing testified about these adverse impacts.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard — Present Case Traffic/Noise/Air Pollution
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
obligationclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Engineer Adverse Impact Conditional Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development to the City Planning Board if — and only if — Engineer A's objective professional judgment determined that such impacts constituted 'relevant and pertinent information' to the hearing; Engineer A was not required to volunteer this information if, in good faith professional judgment, it was not relevant and pertinent, but was required to answer all direct questions about such impacts completely and honestly.
sourcetext: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
temporalscope: During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation and any subsequent questioning
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.372184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Ethical Permissibility
type: HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Design Professional Judgment Trade-Off
defeasible under: BER 79-2 Inter-Engineer Landfill Design Disagreement
casecontext: Engineer C, a town resident, publicly challenged the landfill design adopted by Engineers A and B, contending it would cause methane gas migration and groundwater pollution; the Board found Engineer C acted ethically in raising these concerns.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 79-2 Landfill Design Dispute
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (BER 79-2 resident challenger)
obligationclass: Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly contending that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound and questioning whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site, because such public challenge of engineering decisions in the public arena is subject to open public debate and is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
sourcetext: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
temporalscope: During the period of public controversy over the landfill design
textreferences: Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
textreferences: Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
textreferences: these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.769173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City X Public Hearing
type: RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X waterfront development public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A does not volunteer information about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts when presenting the waterfront development to the City Planning Board, because Engineer A was not specifically questioned on those factors; other witnesses subsequently supply that information at the same hearing.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle permits Engineer A's non-volunteering of adverse impacts because (a) the information was not directly requested, (b) Engineer A would have answered truthfully if asked, and (c) the public hearing process itself — through other witnesses — supplied the omitted information, fulfilling the public interest function. The principle does not require every presenting engineer to volunteer all adverse considerations unprompted when the adversarial structure of the hearing compensates.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact. Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
tensionresolution: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A did not violate ethical standards by not volunteering the adverse information, because the hearing process provided a mechanism for other parties to raise those issues, and Engineer A was prepared to answer truthfully if questioned. The relevance and pertinence standard, combined with the compensating role of other witnesses, resolved the tension in favor of permissibility.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.761392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development
type: RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation of waterfront development design to City Planning Board, including environmental benefits highlighted and traffic/noise/air pollution impacts potentially omitted
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing: permitted to emphasize favorable environmental benefits while obligated not to suppress material adverse information (traffic, noise, air pollution) that is relevant and pertinent and would not otherwise reach the decision-maker.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle permits selective emphasis in advocacy but prohibits suppression of material adverse information; the multi-witness hearing structure partially relieves the disclosure burden by ensuring other witnesses (including independent engineers) can supply adverse information.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use.
tensionresolution: Engineer A may present the project favorably and need not proactively disclose traffic/noise/air pollution impacts if professional judgment determines they are not relevant and pertinent; but if they are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory regardless of client preference.
textreferences: As the previous cases demonstrated engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
textreferences: Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use.
textreferences: In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.371036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront
type: FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure
defeasible under: Engineer A Awareness of Undisclosed Development Impacts
defeasible under: Environmental Benefit vs. Traffic and Pollution Tradeoff in Waterfront Development
casecontext: Engineer A presented the environmental benefits of converting an industrial waterfront to commercial use without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; the Board found this ethically permissible under the relevance and pertinence standard.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as Developer F's faithful agent, was permitted to present the waterfront development in a client-favorable manner emphasizing environmental benefits, provided he did not affirmatively misrepresent or conceal material facts about adverse public welfare impacts in a manner that would leave the City Planning Board with a materially false impression of the project's net public welfare effects.
sourcetext: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
textreferences: Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.767827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Design Professional Judgment Trade-Off
type: ProfessionalJudgmentEnvironmentalTrade-OffFinalArbiterObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Ethical Permissibility
defeasible under: BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Controversy
prevails over: Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Challenge Post-Decision Acceptance
casecontext: Engineers A and B collaborated on redesigning the existing sanitary landfill at higher final contours in accordance with state environmental laws, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes, resulting in a design more than 100 feet higher than originally proposed — a decision publicly challenged by Engineer C as environmentally unsound.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Landfill Design BER 79-2
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers A and B (BER 79-2)
obligationclass: Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Final Arbiter Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental risks of the higher-level design, recognizing that no finite answer exists to such trade-offs and that their honest application of professional judgment — even producing a controversial outcome — constituted ethical conduct.
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.
temporalscope: During the design and redesign process for the sanitary landfill
textreferences: Engineers A and B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.768673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's representation of Developer F before the City Planning Board
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board in a manner that highlights the project's environmental benefits — acting as a faithful agent for the client — while not volunteering adverse information that was not requested, operating within the ethical limits of the faithful agent role.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's role as Developer F's retained engineer permits presenting the project favorably and confining testimony to what is asked, provided Engineer A does not actively misrepresent or suppress material safety information. The faithful agent role is exercised within ethical limits because Engineer A was prepared to answer truthfully if questioned and did not actively deceive the Board.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation is satisfied because Engineer A presented the project accurately (the environmental benefits are genuine), answered questions truthfully, and was prepared to disclose adverse information if asked. The ethical limits are not breached because no active deception occurred and the hearing process compensated through other witnesses.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.761752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
type: ProfessionalJudgmentEnvironmentalTrade-OffFinalArbiterObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment of Engineers A and B
defeasible under: BER 79-2 Competing Environmental and Infrastructure Goods
casecontext: BER Case No. 79-2: Engineers A and B collaborated on multiple redesigns of a sanitary landfill to higher final contours, balancing environmental concerns against the town's need for waste disposal capacity after no alternative site could be found.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Professional Judgment as Environmental Trade-Off Arbiter — BER 79-2 Landfill
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (town engineer) and Engineer B (consulting engineer) in BER 79-2
obligationclass: Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Final Arbiter Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers A and B were obligated to apply case-by-case professional judgment to the landfill expansion design, balancing the town's need for waste disposal capacity against environmental concerns including methane migration and groundwater pollution, recognizing that no finite answer exists to such trade-offs and that professional judgment is the final arbiter of the best balance.
sourcetext: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
temporalscope: Throughout the design and redesign process for the landfill expansion
textreferences: certainly Engineers A and B should consider the technical data each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
textreferences: professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
textreferences: there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.371873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard — Present Case Traffic/Noise/Air Pollution
type: RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to disclose traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the proposed waterfront commercial development at the City Planning Board hearing
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
balancingwith: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development is conditioned on whether those impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing — a determination that falls within Engineer A's professional judgment, not an automatic disclosure duty.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle establishes a professional-judgment-gated disclosure obligation: the engineer must disclose if the information is relevant and pertinent, but is not required to disclose if professional judgment determines it is not — while the multi-witness hearing process provides an institutional backstop through other witnesses.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
principleclass: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
sourcetext: In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
tensionresolution: The tension between client advocacy and public disclosure is resolved by the relevance-and-pertinence filter: disclosure is mandatory when the threshold is crossed, permissibly omitted when it is not, and the multi-witness process compensates for gaps in retained-engineer disclosure.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.370846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A presents the environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion truthfully but does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution), raising the question of whether selective truthfulness — presenting genuine positives while omitting known negatives — constitutes a form of misleading conduct inconsistent with the honesty principle.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honesty principle is satisfied in this case because Engineer A's statements are factually accurate (the environmental benefits are genuine), Engineer A did not make false representations, and Engineer A was prepared to answer truthfully if questioned. Selective emphasis on favorable factors, without active misrepresentation, does not violate the honesty principle when the hearing process provides a mechanism for adverse information to be supplied by other parties.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
tensionresolution: Honesty requires non-deception, not exhaustive volunteering of all adverse information; Engineer A's presentation was honest in that it did not contain false statements, and the engineer's readiness to answer questions truthfully demonstrates good faith compliance with the honesty principle.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case
type: FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Hearing Technical Testimony Public Welfare Role City X
defeasible under: Client vs. Public Interest Tension in Public Hearing Presentation
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F and presents the project favorably. Other witnesses at the same hearing independently testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts, suggesting the public hearing process as a whole provided the City Planning Board with complete information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer A Developer F Waterfront Development
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as Developer F's Retained Engineer
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
derived from principle: Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as faithful agent for Developer F, was obligated to recognize the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: highlighting environmental benefits was permissible, but the presentation could not cross into affirmative suppression or distortion of material adverse public welfare impacts — with the public hearing process itself (including other witnesses) providing a supplementary check on completeness.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
temporalscope: Throughout the public hearing process
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
textreferences: Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.762942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Development Hearing
competes with: Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer City Planning Board
competes with: Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project; Engineer A highlights environmental benefits consistent with Developer F's interests while not volunteering adverse impacts that were not questioned.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent for Developer F in presenting the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, serving Developer F's interests by highlighting the project's environmental benefits, within the bounds of professional ethics and public welfare obligations.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement with Developer F and the public hearing presentation
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.366934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancedAdvisoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
defeasible under: Engineer A Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure Relevance Determination
defeasible under: Multi-Engineer Testimony on Omitted Adverse Impacts at Public Hearing
casecontext: The waterfront development presents genuine competing public goods: environmental improvement through industrial-to-parkland conversion versus adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts on City X residents. Engineer A presents only the environmental benefits side.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.72
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Assessed in City X Waterfront Hearing Context
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:57:28.296719+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A faced a tension between the competing public goods of environmental improvement (industrial-to-parkland conversion) and public welfare impacts (traffic, noise, air pollution) — the question of whether Engineer A was obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address this conflict in the public hearing presentation, or whether the relevance-and-pertinence standard permitted selective emphasis on the environmental benefits.
sourcetext: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation
textreferences: But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.763084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
type: PublicHearingPresentingConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer Public Testimony Role Present Case City Planning Board Hearing
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer A Developer F Waterfront Development
adheres to principle: Honest Disagreement Among Engineers Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
adheres to principle: Honesty Obligation Engineer A City Planning Board Presentation
adheres to principle: Objectivity Obligation Engineer A Waterfront Development Presentation
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Public Hearing Technical Testimony
adheres to principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
has obligation: Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board Hearing
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A NSPE Code Conformance Public Testimony Waterfront Development
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Professional Judgment Exercise
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Non-Deceptive Boundary
has obligation: Engineer A Public Hearing Technical Testimony Public Welfare Role City X
has obligation: Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution BER Present Case
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Commercial development engineering', 'context': 'Public hearing on commercial development'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer presenting at a public hearing on a proposed commercial development project, facing the ethical question of whether to voluntarily disclose anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution as 'relevant and pertinent information' even if not specifically requested by the reviewing body.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:50:22.462784+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'presents_to', 'target': 'City Planning Board Regulatory Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Developer client (implied)'}
relationships: {'type': 'witness_alongside', 'target': 'Public Hearing Witness Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
textreferences: the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
textreferences: the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.761187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
type: Client-RetainedPublicHearingPresenterAdverseImpactNon-VolunteeringPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
competes with: Engineer A NSPE Code Conformance Public Testimony Waterfront Development
competes with: Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
defeasible under: Client vs. Public Interest Tension in Public Hearing Presentation
defeasible under: Engineer A Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure Relevance Determination
prevails over: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A presents the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board, highlighting environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland, but does not volunteer known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts because the Board did not specifically question Engineer A on these factors.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City X Public Hearing
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:41:56.542419+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Adverse Impact Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, retained by Developer F, was not ethically required to volunteer known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts to the City Planning Board when not directly questioned, provided the presentation did not affirmatively mislead the Board and Engineer A answered all direct questions completely and honestly.
sourcetext: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
temporalscope: During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact.
textreferences: Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.362051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
type: PublicPolicyEnvironmentalImpactDisclosureEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony Invoked by Engineer A's Conditional Disclosure Willingness
adheres to principle: Engineer Public Testimony Heightened Obligation — Present Case
adheres to principle: Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Invoked by Engineer A at Planning Board
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as Developer F's Retained Engineer
adheres to principle: Objectivity Principle Invoked in Engineer A's Public Hearing Presentation
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Tension Invoked by Engineer A's Non-Volunteering of Adverse Impacts
adheres to principle: Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard — Present Case Traffic/Noise/Air Pollution
adheres to principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City Planning Board Hearing
adheres to principle: Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development
adheres to principle: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Subjective Policy Balancing Acknowledgment — Present Case Environmental Impacts
adheres to principle: Transparency Principle Invoked in Engineer A's Non-Disclosure of Adverse Impacts
has obligation: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Commitment BER Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Artfully-Misleading Selective Emphasis Presentation BER Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
has obligation: Present Case Environmental Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Commercial development engineering, environmental impact', 'engagement': 'Retained by developer for public hearing presentation'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer retained by a developer to present a commercial development project before a public body, facing the ethical question of whether to disclose anticipated significant increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution as 'relevant and pertinent' information, with the obligation determined by professional judgment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T20:37:24.524443+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'presenting_to', 'target': 'Public Body'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Commercial Developer Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure Engineer
sourcetext: the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
textreferences: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
textreferences: the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
textreferences: the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:55:42.361528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
type: PublicHearingPresentingConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
adheres to principle: Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
adheres to principle: Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports Applied to City Planning Board Presentation
adheres to principle: Objectivity Principle Applied to Engineer A's Client-Retained Presentation
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Assessed in City X Waterfront Hearing Context
adheres to principle: Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City X Public Hearing
has obligation: Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Development Hearing
has obligation: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Conditional Disclosure Willingness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
has obligation: Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer City Planning Board
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront
has obligation: Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Developer F Waterfront
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Deceptive Presentation Adverse Impact Non-Concealment City X
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
has obligation: Engineer A Professional Judgment Objectivity Relevance Determination City X
has obligation: Engineer A Public Hearing Technical Testimony Public Welfare Role City X
has obligation: Engineer A Relevance Judgment Traffic Noise Air Pollution City X Hearing
has obligation: Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
has obligation: Engineer A Retained Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefit Non-Deceptive Presentation Developer F
has obligation: Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Permissibility Boundary Developer F Hearing
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Waterfront development design and environmental assessment', 'disclosure_behavior': 'Selective — disclosed environmental benefits, withheld traffic/pollution impacts unless questioned'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development design at the City X public hearing before the City Planning Board. Engineer A highlighted positive environmental effects but did not volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution when not specifically questioned, raising ethical questions about completeness of disclosure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 94
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 94
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T18:49:29.460591+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer F'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_witness', 'target': 'Other Engineers at Hearing'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_audience', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project
textreferences: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect
textreferences: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
textreferences: Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project
textreferences: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board
wasattributedto: Case 94 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:13:05.759628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 94 Extraction