Client relationship may create pressure to frame public presentations favorably toward developer interests
Retention by a private developer may create tension with obligations to public bodies and the general public
Legitimate professional engagement within scope of engineering practice
Providing technical expertise to support a development project through a lawful approval process
Engineers may be retained by private clients for projects requiring public approval
Professional competence in accepting assignments within one's area of expertise
Establish professional engagement to provide engineering services for the waterfront development project
Knowledge of planning and regulatory approval processes
Waterfront development engineering expertise
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.
Accept Developer Retention (Action 1) → Engineer Retention Established (Event 1)
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
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
Engineer Retention Established (Event 1)
Absence of Engineer A declining or disclosing conflict to the Planning Board
Developer F's offer of engagement for the waterfront project
Engineer A's volitional decision to accept the retainer
Acceptance of retainer + formal engagement agreement = establishment of retained relationship with all attendant loyalty obligations to Developer F
Accept Developer Retention → Engineer A Retention Established
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Precedents on Engineer Disclosure Obligations in Public Hearings
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in evaluating the disclosure obligation
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
BER Board BER 65-9 79-2 Cross-Context Factual Distinction Application
BER Dual-Precedent Public Policy Debate Synthesis Capability
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.
Present case analysis using BER 65-9 and 79-2 as instructive precedents
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
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
Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments
the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 63-6
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...'
There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (cited within BER Case 65-9 analysis)
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 65-9
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 used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 79-2
Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer...
'[t]hat … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.'
'there is no finite answer to the balance or trade-off which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent for the present case's environmental disclosure analysis
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
BER Case No. 65-9 before BER Case No. 79-2
Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case... [following discussion of BER Case No. 65-9 from 1965]
BER Case No. 65-9 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F)
BER Case No. 65-9 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
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.
present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
BER Case No. 79-2 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F)
BER Case No. 79-2 before present case (Engineer A and Developer F waterfront project)
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.
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'
engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (cited within Case 65-9 analysis)
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
In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes
a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case involving Engineer A's disclosure obligations
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
Later in BER Case No. 79-2, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B
That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation
there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent for the present case
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
BER Ethics Review Body Dual-Precedent Synthesis Present Case
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.
Present case — BER's ethical analysis of Engineer A's public hearing disclosure obligations
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
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.
BER Precedent Cases Established → Withhold Unprompted Pollution Disclosure (ethical evaluation context)
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
During public hearing, immediately following Engineer A's presentation
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.
CausalLink_Conditionally Commit to Honest
CausalLink_Frame Presentation Around Bene
{'entity_type': 'Municipal official (non-engineer)', 'action': 'Public criticism of highway route selection'}
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.
{'type': 'aligned_with', 'target': 'Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic'}
An official of a city located close to the proposed route publicly criticized the proposed route 'B'
the city official as favoring route 'D,' proposed by the consulting engineer
City Planning Board members questioning Engineer A during Engineer A's public hearing presentation
Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
City Planning Board members questioning Engineer A
Engineer A's public hearing presentation
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
City Planning Board questioning of Engineer A during Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board
Comply With Higher-Contour Landfill Redesign
Comply With Higher-Contour Landfill Redesign → BER Precedent Cases Established
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.
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.
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.
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 instance, but because doing so reflects the intellectual honesty and civic responsibility that the profession demands of its members.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Board, not knowing what questions to ask, may never trigger the disclosure Engineer A is prepared to make
The conditional commitment provides Engineer A with a subjective ethical justification for non-disclosure that may not satisfy objective professional standards
Did not prepare or intend to give false answers
Maintained commitment to truthful testimony if directly questioned
A public body's inability to ask the right question does not relieve the engineer of the obligation to supply material technical information
Honesty in engineering testimony encompasses both reactive truthfulness and proactive completeness
Preserve personal ethical integrity by committing to truthful answers if asked, while avoiding proactive disclosure that could harm the client's approval prospects
Professional judgment about disclosure obligations
Obligation to ensure the public body has the information needed to make sound decisions, not merely to answer questions honestly when asked
Obligation to proactively disclose relevant and pertinent information to a public body
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.
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
Conditionally Commit to Honest Answers (Action 4)
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
Information Gap In Record (Event 5), via non-disclosure when Board is silent
Board members' failure to ask direct questions about impacts (Event 3)
Engineer A's adoption of a conditional rather than proactive honesty standard
Engineer A's possession of material knowledge that would otherwise require disclosure under a proactive standard
Conditional honesty standard + Board silence = sufficient to guarantee non-disclosure of known material negative impacts, regardless of Engineer A's underlying knowledge
Conditionally Commit to Honest Answers (Action 4) → Information Gap In Record (Event 5) — via non-disclosure when Board is silent
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Prohibition
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
Consulting Firm Principal (BER Case 65-9)
Honest Cost Estimate Disagreement Public Expression Non-Prohibition Constraint
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.
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
At the time of publication of the public letter 'To Whom Concerned' in the local press
There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Public Disagreement
Engineering Cost Estimate Public Disagreement Capability
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.
BER Case 65-9 — interstate highway bypass route selection controversy
Publishing a public letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing route D as superior to the department's favored route B
Consulting Firm Principal (BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic)
His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Public Letter Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
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.
Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER Case 65-9)
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.
At the time of publication of the public letter 'To Whom Concerned'
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Honest Differences of Opinion Recognition
Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
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.
BER Case 65-9 — consulting engineer's public criticism of state highway department route selection
Public expression of disagreement grounded in professional judgment about route alternatives, without impermissible disparagement of the highway department engineers
Consulting Firm Principal Highway Route Critic BER 65-9
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.
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Public Letter Highway Route Criticism
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.
BER Case 65-9 — consulting engineer publicly criticized state highway department's preferred bypass route and proposed alternative
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
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.
His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route.
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
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Recognition
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.
BER Case 65-9 — public criticism of state highway department route recommendations
Publicly issuing a letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing alternative route D, grounded in genuine professional judgment
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A — Retained Engineer Presenting Developer F's Project at City Planning Board Hearing
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A — Licensed Professional Engineer Testifying Before City Planning Board
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A — Licensed Professional Engineer Under Direct Examination by City Planning Board
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A — Retained Engineer Deciding Disclosure Posture in Advance of Multi-Witness Public Hearing
{'project_type': 'Major waterfront development — industrial-to-parkland/commercial conversion', 'location': 'City X'}
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.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'subject_to_approval', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
Developer F retaining Engineer A before public hearing before City Planning Board
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
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.
Engineer A during public hearing presentation to City Planning Board
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
Engineer A Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure
Public Hearing Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Capability
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.
Waterfront development public hearing before City Planning Board
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
Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer)
If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Avoidance Waterfront Development
Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
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.
Public hearing presentation of waterfront development before City Planning Board
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
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Development Hearing
Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Development Presentation
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Presentation Prohibition Waterfront Hearing
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.
Public hearing presentation on waterfront development; selective emphasis on environmental benefits while known adverse impacts exist
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.
Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
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.
Engineer A Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary BER Present Case
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.
Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Sections II.3.a (objectivity and truthfulness) and III.2.b (faithful agent duty)
During Engineer A's presentation to the City X Planning Board
Engineer A Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Non-Concealment
Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Capability
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.
Developer F waterfront development presentation at City Planning Board
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
Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Permissibility Boundary Developer F Hearing
Engineer A Competing Environmental Infrastructure Goods Non-Distortion Waterfront Presentation
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.
Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case No. 79-2 on competing environmental and infrastructure goods
During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation
it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Environmental Benefit vs Traffic Noise Pollution BER Present Case
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5 precedent on competing public goods
During Engineer A's presentation and throughout the public hearing process
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Environmental Benefit vs Traffic Noise Pollution Recognition Waterfront
Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
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
Waterfront development project converting industrial facility to parkland with commercial development components; public hearing before City Planning Board
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
Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, Present Case)
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Environmental Improvement vs Traffic Noise Pollution Balanced Disclosure City X
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case precedent on competing public goods
Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
During the City X Planning Board hearing presentation
many of these important public policy questions are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
Engineer A Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
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
Public Hearing Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception and objectivity provisions
Throughout the City Planning Board hearing, particularly during the question-and-answer phase
engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Traffic Noise Pollution Planning Board
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER Case precedent on selective testimony
Throughout the City Planning Board public hearing, including the question-and-answer phase
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer City Planning Board
Public Hearing Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Capability
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.
City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development
Obligation to answer direct questions from City Planning Board completely and honestly even when not volunteering adverse impact information proactively
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board Hearing
Engineer A Conditional Disclosure Willingness Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Answer Obligation City Planning Board
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.
City Planning Board public hearing; Engineer A responds to questions from Board members
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.
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Obligation City X Planning Board
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.
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.
Throughout the City X Planning Board hearing
Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Readiness Traffic Noise Air Pollution
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
Public hearing before City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront development project; Engineer A retained by Developer F as presenting engineer
Engineer A's stated disposition to provide complete testimony on traffic, noise, and air pollution issues if directly questioned by the City Planning Board
Engineer A Direct Question Honest Answer Commitment Traffic Noise Air Pollution BER Present Case
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, non-deception and objectivity provisions
Throughout the public hearing before the City X Planning Board
Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation Scope
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.
Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III — faithful agent and trustee duty; BER Case precedent
Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
Throughout the engagement with Developer F and the public hearing
Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Disclosure Scope Limitation BER Present Case
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, faithful agent provisions; BER Case precedent on engineer as faithful agent
Throughout Engineer A's engagement with Developer F and the public hearing presentation
Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Self-Assessment Waterfront Development
Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
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
City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development; Engineer A retained by Developer F; other engineers independently testified about adverse impacts
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
Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Waterfront Hearing
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.
Public hearing before City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront development project in City X
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.
Engineer A Multi-Engineer Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Planning Board Hearing
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.
Engineer A and other engineers testifying at the City Planning Board hearing
Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2
During and after the City Planning Board public hearing
Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering
Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Process Reliance Capability
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.
City Planning Board public hearing with multiple independent witnesses
Relying on the institutional structure of the hearing where other engineers independently testified on adverse impacts not covered by Engineer A's presentation
Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Developer F Waterfront
Engineer A was permitted to rely on the multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing
Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Waterfront
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.
City Planning Board public hearing with multiple independent witnesses including other engineers testifying on different aspects of the waterfront development
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.
Engineer A Multi-Witness Hearing Non-Mandatory Volunteering Traffic Noise Pollution Developer F
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
Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 precedent on selective testimony in multi-witness public hearings
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
At the City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development project
engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
Engineer A NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Waterfront Development Hearing
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
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on engineer public testimony obligations
Throughout the City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development project
Engineer A Non-Artfully-Misleading Selective Emphasis City X Planning Board Presentation
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER precedent on selective testimony
Engineer A Non-Concealment Public Welfare Impact Waterfront Presentation
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.
Public hearing before City Planning Board; Engineer A retained by Developer F to present waterfront development project
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.
Engineer A Non-Deception Constraint Public Hearing Presentation BER Present Case
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, non-deception provisions (Section II.3.a)
Throughout Engineer A's presentation and question-and-answer period at the City X Planning Board public hearing
Engineer A Non-Mandatory Volunteering Adverse Impacts Multi-Witness Planning Board Hearing
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2
Engineer A Present Case BER Dual-Precedent Synthesis Application
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.
Present case — BER's application of dual-precedent synthesis to Engineer A's public hearing disclosure obligations
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
Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
Engineer A Present Case Environmental Policy Subjective Balancing Non-Objective-Resolution Constraint
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
Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 precedent on environmental trade-off subjectivity
Throughout Engineer A's evaluation and presentation of the waterfront development project
Engineer A Present Case Environmental Subjectivity Acknowledgment
Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Capability
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.
Present case — waterfront development public hearing environmental impact assessment
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
Engineer A (Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure Engineer)
Present Case Environmental Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment
environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests
Engineer A Present Case Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Assessment
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.
Present case — Engineer A presenting waterfront development to City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
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
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.
Engineer A Present Case Multi-Engineer Conflicting View Permissibility
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.
Present case — multiple engineers testifying at City Planning Board hearing with differing emphases on project impacts
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
the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
Engineer A Present Case Public Hearing Direct Question Honest Answer
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.
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
Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Traffic Noise Air Pollution Judgment
Public Hearing Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Capability
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.
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
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.
Engineer A Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Waterfront Development Hearing
Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Maintenance Capability
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
Public regulatory hearing involving competing expert testimony about a waterfront development project with mixed public welfare impacts
Presenting accurate environmental benefits without fabricating or distorting technical data; willingness to provide complete honest testimony if directly questioned about adverse impacts
Engineer A Public Controversy Objectivity Maintenance Waterfront Development
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.
Public hearing on waterfront development with competing stakeholder interests
Maintaining professional objectivity in presenting the waterfront development project while navigating the tension between faithful agent obligations and public welfare disclosure duties
Engineer A NSPE Code Conformance Public Testimony Waterfront Development
Engineer A Public Hearing Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Disclosure Waterfront
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.
City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development; adverse impacts known but not directly questioned
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.
Engineer A Public Hearing NSPE Code Conformance Self-Assessment
NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer A retained by Developer F to present waterfront development at City Planning Board public hearing
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
Engineer A Public Hearing Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution
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.
City Planning Board public hearing on waterfront development project; multi-witness hearing with other engineers testifying on adverse impacts
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.
Engineer A Public Hearing Relevance Pertinence Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution
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
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
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
Engineer A Public Hearing Selective Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution Permissibility BER Present Case
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on selective testimony at public hearings
During Engineer A's presentation and question-and-answer period at the City X Planning Board public hearing
Engineer A Public Hearing Testimony NSPE Code Consistency Constraint City X
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.
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.
Throughout Engineer A's engagement with the City X Planning Board hearing
Because of the effect that their testimony may have on public policy discussions of this type
Engineer A Relevance-Pertinence Disclosure Trigger Traffic Noise Air Pollution City Planning Board
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
Relevance-Pertinence Professional Judgment Disclosure Trigger Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 precedent
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
At the time of the City Planning Board hearing on the waterfront development project
Engineer A Relevance-Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution Planning Board Hearing
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case precedent on selective testimony at public hearings
During and in preparation for the City Planning Board public hearing
Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure Trigger City X Planning Board
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.
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.
During and in preparation for the City X Planning Board hearing presentation
Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Affirmative Concealment Boundary Developer F Hearing
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception and objectivity provisions; BER Case precedent
Engineer A Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Non-Deceptive Boundary Developer F Planning Board
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
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.
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
Throughout the City Planning Board hearing presentation
Engineer A Technically True Selective Emphasis Non-Misleading Boundary Waterfront Presentation
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
Public hearing presentation for Developer F's waterfront development before City Planning Board
Presenting environmental improvements accurately without making affirmatively false or misleading statements about traffic, noise, or pollution; remaining prepared to answer direct questions truthfully
Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution factors during Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board
Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution factors during Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board
Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution factors
Engineer A's presentation to the City Planning Board
Engineer A's presentation and Q&A before City Planning Board before other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution
Engineer A's presentation and Q&A before City Planning Board
other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution
Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board before other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution
Engineer A's retention by Developer F before public hearing before the City Planning Board
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.
public hearing before the City Planning Board
Engineer B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment
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.
BER Case 79-2 — consulting engineer's environmental trade-off judgment in landfill redesign
Participation in multiple redesign iterations and ultimate production of an acceptable design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted at the present rate of use in three years
Engineers A and B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
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.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Landfill design, environmental engineering', 'retained_by': 'Town council'}
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.
{'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Town Council'}
{'type': 'subject_of_challenge', 'target': 'Engineer C Resident Challenger BER 79-2'}
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.
Engineer A and Engineer B had acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council
Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
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.
Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
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.
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
After the town council's deliberation and decision on the landfill design
these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority
Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Acceptance Non-Ethical-Indictment
Post-Public-Policy-Decision Engineering Acceptance Capability
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.
BER Case 79-2 — post-decision acceptance of landfill expansion design after public controversy
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
Engineer C (BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger)
Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
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.
BER Case 79-2 — resident engineer's post-challenge acceptance obligation after public policy resolution
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
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.
That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment Landfill Design Acceptance
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
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.
After the appropriate public authority resolved to proceed with the higher-contour landfill design
Engineer C BER 79-2 Public Policy Challenge Ethical Permissibility Recognition
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.
BER Case 79-2 — public challenge to landfill expansion design
Publicly contending that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater pollution concerns
Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern
Engineer C had acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B
Engineer C Public Challenge to Landfill Design
From Engineer C's first public statement through Board's ethical review
Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
Engineer C's public challenge to Engineers A and B's accepted landfill design on environmental grounds
Board finding that Engineer C acted ethically and that conflicting engineering views in public arena are permissible
Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site
Engineer C publicly contending that the higher-contour design would cause methane migration and groundwater pollution
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
Engineer A transitions from uninvolved party to retained professional with fiduciary and ethical duties to both Developer F and the broader public
Project initiation, prior to public hearing
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code of Ethics)
Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard (derived from NSPE Code)
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in resolving the present case
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
Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard — Relevant and Pertinent Information Test
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's disclosure obligations
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
Engineers A B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment
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.
BER Case 79-2 — town engineer and consulting engineer's landfill redesign balancing environmental and public welfare trade-offs
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
each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Finality
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.
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.
During the design and approval of the higher-contour landfill
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
Engineers A B C BER 65-9 79-2 Multi-Engineer Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy
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
All engineers in BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 and present case
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.
BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
Applicable throughout all public policy engineering disagreements referenced in the case
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
That … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern
Engineers A B C BER 79-2 Landfill Mutual Ethical Legitimacy of Competing Conclusions
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, 79-2
Throughout the public controversy over the landfill design
Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
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.
BER Case 79-2 — sanitary landfill expansion design with environmental trade-offs
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
Engineer A (BER 79-2 Town Engineer) and Engineer B (BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer)
Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Finality Landfill Design
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
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.
Throughout the landfill redesign process and subsequent public controversy
Engineers A and B Landfill Design Public Controversy
From submission of the higher-contour design through public debate and Engineer C's public challenge
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
Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
Engineers A and B's higher-contour landfill redesign for the town council
Board determination that all engineers acted ethically and that conflicting public views are of no ethical concern
The issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy
Town council acceptance of the higher-contour landfill design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes, followed by Engineer C's public environmental objections
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)
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.
Engineers A and B study of landfill contours (BER Case No. 79-2)
Engineer C publicly contending the higher level design would be environmentally unsound (BER Case No. 79-2)
Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
Engineer A when presenting the waterfront development design to the City Planning Board
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
Board members may form decisions without full awareness of negative environmental tradeoffs
Other witnesses may need to supply omitted information, potentially undermining project credibility
Selective emphasis on benefits creates an incomplete picture for the Planning Board
Provided accurate information about the environmental benefits of parkland conversion
Responded to the client's interest in presenting the project favorably
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports and public statements
Engineers shall not suppress or distort technical data to favor a client
Public bodies rely on engineers for complete technical information to make sound policy decisions
Persuade the City Planning Board of the environmental merits of the waterfront development project to support approval
Obligation to disclose all relevant and pertinent information to a public body
Obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount over client interests
Obligation to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner
Environmental impact analysis and communication
Public hearing presentation and testimony
Technical judgment about project impacts
During public hearing before City Planning Board; presentation phase
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.
Frame Presentation Around Benefits (Action 2) → Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
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
Frame Presentation Around Benefits (Action 2)
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
Engineer A's conditional commitment to honesty only if directly questioned (Action 4)
Engineer A's deliberate decision to frame testimony around benefits only
Engineer A's possession of knowledge about negative impacts (traffic, air pollution, noise)
The absence of Board members specifically questioning Engineer A about those impacts (Event 3)
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
The conditional honesty commitment (Action 4) ensured that Board silence (Event 3) would not trigger voluntary disclosure, completing the sufficient set
Industrial Waterfront Conversion Proposed
Industrial Waterfront Conversion Proposed → Public Hearing Convened
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
Throughout and following the public hearing
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.
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
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
Prior BER Cases Referenced (Event 6), ethical violation confirmed by precedent analysis
The ethical review process examining Engineer A's conduct against established professional standards
The existence of a demonstrable information gap in the record attributable to Engineer A's conduct
The existence of prior BER precedents addressing analogous selective disclosure and public testimony ethics scenarios
Documented information gap + applicable BER precedents + ethical review process = sufficient to produce a finding that Engineer A's conduct violated professional engineering ethics obligations
Information Gap In Record (Event 5) → Prior BER Cases Referenced (Event 6) — ethical violation confirmed by precedent analysis
Landfill Environmental Safety vs. Community Need Tension
From the town council's inability to locate an alternate disposal site through acceptance of the higher-contour design
Trade-off between the town's need for landfill capacity and environmental protection of adjacent properties and groundwater
Acceptance of the redesign incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes; Board's acknowledgment that no finite answer exists to the environmental trade-off
Town council's exhaustion of alternate disposal location options and request for higher-contour redesign under state environmental laws
National Society of Professional Engineers
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.
Engineer A when preparing and delivering public hearing testimony
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations
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
Other engineers subsequently testify about omitted impacts, potentially signaling Engineer A's selective disclosure
Planning Board makes decisions without complete environmental impact information from the primary project engineer
Public interest may be harmed if the Board approves a project without understanding its full environmental tradeoffs
Did not make affirmatively false statements
Maintained conditional willingness to answer honestly if directly questioned
Engineers testifying before public bodies bear heightened obligations to completeness given their effect on public policy
Silence on material facts known to the engineer may constitute a form of misrepresentation in a public hearing context
The public and public bodies rely on engineers for technical information they cannot independently assess
Avoid introducing negative information that could jeopardize project approval, while remaining technically truthful about what was stated
Professional judgment about materiality and relevance of technical information
During public hearing; throughout presentation and Q&A phase
Obligation not to suppress or withhold technical data that affects public policy decisions
Obligation to be objective and complete in public technical testimony
Obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
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.
Omit Known Negative Impacts (Action 3) → Board Members Silent On Impacts (Event 3) enabling Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
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
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
Board Members Silent On Impacts (Event 3) enabling Information Gap In Record (Event 5)
Absence of other information sources alerting the Board to the omitted issues prior to Engineer A's testimony
Board members' reliance on Engineer A's expert presentation as a basis for identifying what questions to ask
Engineer A's actual knowledge of the negative impacts
Engineer A's decision not to disclose those impacts voluntarily
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
Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
{'testimony_subject': 'Traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution impacts', 'independence': 'Not retained by Developer F'}
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.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
{'independence': 'Not retained by Developer F', 'testimony_subject': 'Traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts'}
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.
{'type': 'supplements_testimony_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
During Board's ethical review of Engineer A's disclosure obligation
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
Board's use of BER Cases 65-9 and 79-2 to calibrate Engineer A's disclosure obligation in the present commercial development case
Board's final determination on Engineer A's disclosure obligation
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
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
Board's need to determine whether prior cases on inter-engineer disagreement apply to a single engineer's disclosure obligation regarding collateral impacts
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
Discussion/analysis phase, after factual events
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.
Engineer A when structuring and delivering the public hearing presentation
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
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.
Engineer A when deciding what information to present and withhold at the public hearing
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
The project moves from private planning into public regulatory scrutiny; Engineer A's professional conduct becomes subject to civic accountability and public record
After project design phase; before Engineer A's presentation
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.
Publicly Issue Highway Criticism Letter → BER Precedent Cases Established
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Selectively Highlight Environmental Benefits
Selectively Highlight Environmental Benefits → Negative Impacts Testified
State Highway Department Engineers BER 65-9
{'employer': 'State highway department', 'specialty': 'Highway route engineering and cost estimation', 'action': 'Prepared official route analysis and cost estimates; recommended route B'}
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.
{'type': 'subject_of_critique', 'target': 'Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic'}
State Highway Department Route Design Engineer
a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass of part of the interstate highway system
cost estimates of the highway department engineers
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
Later in the same public hearing, after Engineer A's presentation
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.
{'entity_type': 'Municipal legislative body', 'role': 'Client directing landfill redesign'}
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.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer'}
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer'}
Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council
the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design
Withhold Unprompted Pollution Disclosure
Withhold Unprompted Pollution Disclosure → Negative Impacts Testified
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
Disagreement is permissible when grounded in professional analysis of the same facts, not in competitive self-interest or personal attack.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
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.
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The heightened obligation is satisfied when the engineer applies genuine professional judgment to the relevance-and-pertinence determination, rather than defaulting to client preference.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
The principle dissolves the apparent ethical conflict between the competing engineering positions by relocating final authority to the public body.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
multiple redesigns not accepted (BER Case No. 79-2) before final acceptable design with minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
public hearing before City Planning Board before Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer C was ethically permitted — and not prohibited — from publicly contending that the higher-level landfill design was environmentally unsound.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
several redesigns not accepted by town council (BER Case No. 79-2)
town council requesting new design resulting in acceptable solution (BER Case No. 79-2)
BER 65-9 Highway Route Public Disagreement
From publication of consulting engineer's public letter through public policy resolution of route selection
a principal of a consulting engineering firm...issued a public letter...discussing the alternative routes
Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
Consulting engineer's public disagreement with state highway department engineers over bypass route cost estimates and route selection
Resolution of highway route selection by appropriate public authority
His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department
Consulting engineer published open letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing alternative Route D
BER 79-2 Competing Environmental and Infrastructure Goods
Throughout the landfill redesign process and public controversy period
Tension between society's need for landfill capacity and environmental protection of adjacent properties and groundwater
Public authority's final decision on landfill design approach
Town council's inability to find alternate disposal site, requiring higher-contour redesign of existing landfill
BER 79-2 Inter-Engineer Landfill Design Disagreement
From Engineer C's public statement through public authority resolution
Engineer C's good-faith public challenge to Engineers A and B's landfill design conclusions
Public authority's final determination on the landfill design
Engineer C publicly challenged the environmental soundness of the approved higher-contour landfill design
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Present Case From BER 65-9 and 79-2
BER Case No. 65-9 highway route controversy
BER Case No. 79-2 landfill design controversy
Present case waterfront development disclosure question
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
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.
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.
City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
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.
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).
Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Municipal engineering, sanitary landfill design', 'employer': 'Town government'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council BER 79-2'}
{'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer'}
{'type': 'subject_of_challenge', 'target': 'Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger'}
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
Engineer A Client Relationship with Developer F
From retention through at least the public hearing presentation
Engineer A retained by Developer F for the waterfront development project
Developer F retains Engineer A for the major waterfront development project in City X
Engineer A Commercial Development Disclosure Threshold
From Engineer A's preparation of the public presentation through submission of the presentation to the public body
Professional Judgment Disclosure Threshold Determination State
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
Engineer A's professional judgment determination on relevance and submission of presentation
Engineer A's engagement to present on a project where anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, noise, and air pollution
Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Consulting engineering, sanitary landfill design, environmental engineering', 'engagement': 'Retained by town council'}
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.
{'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer'}
Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted
Engineers A and B to prepare a new design, which resulted in an acceptable solution
Highway Route Alternative Proposal Public Disagreement
From publication of the consulting engineer's open letter through Board review
Principal of consulting engineering firm
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
Consulting engineer's public disagreement with state highway department cost estimates and route selection, including proposal of Route D
Board determination that public expression of disagreement and alternative proposals is ethically permissible
The letter then suggested a fourth route ('D') which, it was claimed, would be superior to those previously suggested
Consulting engineer's publication of a public letter disagreeing with highway department cost estimates and proposing an alternative Route D
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Invoked for City Planning Board
City Planning Board's decision on Developer F's waterfront development project
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
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.
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.
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
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.
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Tension at City X Public Hearing
City Planning Board's decision-making on Developer F's waterfront development project
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.
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.
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.
Informed Decision Making Enablement City Planning Board Waterfront Development
City Planning Board regulatory decision on Developer F's waterfront development
Traffic, noise, and air pollution impact information
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.
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.
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.
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.
If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
Other witnesses and participants in the public process may supply information the presenting engineer did not volunteer.
Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports Applied to City Planning Board Presentation
Engineer A's oral presentation to the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
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.
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.
Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
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.
Objectivity Principle Invoked in Engineer A's Public Hearing Presentation
Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board
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.
Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
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.
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.
Present Case Precedent Distinguishing from BER 65-9 and 79-2
During Board's ethical review of the present case
Board's analysis distinguishing the present case (single engineer's disclosure obligation) from prior cases (disagreements between multiple engineers on same facts)
Board's conclusion that Engineer A's disclosure obligation is governed by professional judgment about relevance and pertinence
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
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Invoked in Waterfront Development Hearing
City Planning Board decision-making process on Developer F's waterfront development
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.
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.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
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.
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.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Waterfront Development Hearing
Developer F's waterfront development project approval process
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.
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.
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.
Selective Testimony Completeness in Public Presentation
During preparation and delivery of Engineer A's presentation before the public body
Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
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
Completion of the public presentation and Board's ethical determination
Engineer A's awareness of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts and the need to decide whether to include them in the public presentation
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Critic
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Highway/transportation engineering', 'action': 'Published open letter criticizing government route selection and proposing alternative'}
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.
{'type': 'peer_critic', 'target': 'State Highway Department Route Design Engineers'}
{'type': 'public_stakeholder', 'target': 'City Official'}
Public Interest Highway Route Critic Engineer
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
His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
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
{'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'}
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.'
{'type': 'aligned_with', 'target': 'City Official favoring Route D'}
{'type': 'public_critic_of', 'target': 'State Highway Department Engineers'}
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
The letter then suggested a fourth route ('D') which, it was claimed, would be superior to those previously suggested.
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer Commitment BER Present Case
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.
Public Hearing Presenter Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Obligation
During the question-and-answer portion of the public hearing
Engineer C BER 79-2 Resident Public Challenger
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'community_role': 'Town resident', 'action': 'Public challenge of landfill design on environmental grounds'}
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.
{'type': 'advocate_for', 'target': 'Affected Community'}
{'type': 'challenger_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 79-2 Town Engineer Landfill Designer'}
{'type': 'challenger_of', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 79-2 Consulting Engineer Landfill Designer'}
Resident Engineer Public Controversy Challenger
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
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering', 'community_status': 'Town resident'}
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.
{'type': 'advocates_for', 'target': 'Town residents and public'}
{'type': 'challenges', 'target': 'Engineer A Town Engineer BER 79-2'}
{'type': 'challenges', 'target': 'Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2'}
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.
Engineer C then publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site.
Transparency Principle Invoked in Engineer A's Non-Disclosure of Adverse Impacts
Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board on Developer F's waterfront project
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.
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.
BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Controversy
From Engineer C's public challenge through town council's final decision on landfill design
Engineers A and B's higher-contour landfill design challenged publicly by Engineer C on environmental grounds
Public authority resolution of landfill design decision
Engineer C publicly contended that the higher-level design would cause methane migration and groundwater pollution
Client vs. Public Interest Tension in Public Hearing Presentation
Throughout the public hearing presentation
Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
Engineer A's dual obligation to Developer F (client) and to the City X Planning Board and public
Not fully resolved within the case facts; partially mitigated by other witnesses raising the omitted issues
Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect
Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
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
Engineer A Awareness of Undisclosed Development Impacts
During the public hearing presentation, before other witnesses raise the issues
Engineer A's knowledge of traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts not volunteered to the Planning Board
Other witnesses testify about these impacts at the same hearing
Engineer A becomes aware that the commercial development will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution but does not volunteer this information
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.
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.
Engineer A Non-Artfully-Misleading Selective Emphasis Presentation BER Present Case
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.
Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Obligation
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.
Engineer A Non-Deceptive Presentation Adverse Impact Non-Concealment City X
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.
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.
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.
During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
Engineer A Present Case Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefits Non-Deceptive Boundary
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.
Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
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.
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
Engineer A Relevance Judgment Traffic Noise Air Pollution City X Hearing
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.
Professional Judgment Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Obligation
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.
Engineer A Retained Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefit Non-Deceptive Presentation Developer F
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.
Retained Engineer Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefit Non-Deceptive Presentation Obligation
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.
During the public hearing presentation to the City Planning Board
Professional relationship between Engineer A and Developer F
Developer F retains Engineer A for the major waterfront development project
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.
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.
Engineer A Selective Testimony at Planning Board Hearing
From the moment Engineer A begins the public hearing presentation through the conclusion of testimony, persisting as an ethical evaluation condition thereafter
Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
Engineer A's presentation to City X Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
Other witnesses (including other engineers) subsequently testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues, completing the public record
Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues
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
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Municipal engineering, landfill design', 'employer': 'Town government'}
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.
{'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer B Consulting Engineer BER 79-2'}
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.
Engineer A Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure Relevance Determination
From Engineer A's awareness of the traffic/noise/air pollution impacts through completion of the public presentation
Affected third parties (traffic/noise/pollution impacts)
Third-Party Environmental Impact Disclosure Relevance Contested State
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
Engineer A's professional judgment determination on relevance and completion of the public presentation
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
Honest Disagreement Among Engineers Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
Multiple engineers reaching different conclusions at the same public hearing
Waterfront development traffic, noise, and air pollution impact disclosure question
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.
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.
That … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
Known Adverse Impacts Not Proactively Disclosed to Planning Board
From Engineer A's awareness of adverse impacts through the public hearing, until other witnesses raise the issues
Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts from the development
Other witnesses testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues at the same hearing
Engineer A is aware that the commercial development will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution but does not volunteer this information during testimony
Multi-Engineer Testimony on Omitted Adverse Impacts at Public Hearing
From the point other witnesses testify about traffic, noise, and air pollution through the close of the public hearing
Divergence between Engineer A's selective presentation and subsequent testimony by other engineers on adverse impacts
Other engineers and witnesses testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues that Engineer A did not volunteer
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.
Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Final Arbiter Obligation
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.
Throughout the project design and public hearing presentation
Proactive Risk Disclosure Tension Invoked by Engineer A's Non-Volunteering of Adverse Impacts
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.
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.
Professional Opinion Divergence at City X Planning Board Hearing
From the point other engineers testify at the same hearing, presenting information not covered by Engineer A
Divergence between Engineer A's presentation and subsequent testimony by other engineers on traffic, noise, and air pollution
Other engineers attending the public hearing testify about increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues that Engineer A did not volunteer
Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Invoked by Engineer A
Engineer A's presentation role at City Planning Board hearing on behalf of Developer F
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.
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.
Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
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.
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.
Engineer A Professional Judgment Objectivity Relevance Determination City X
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.
Client-Retained Public Hearing Engineer Adverse Impact Conditional Disclosure Obligation
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.
Prior to and during the public hearing presentation
Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Non-Volunteering Traffic Noise Air Pollution BER Present Case
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.
Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings
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.
Engineer Public Testimony Heightened Obligation — Present Case
Engineer A's presentation of the waterfront development project to the City Planning Board
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.
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.
Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
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.
Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people's lives.
Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Invoked by Engineer A at Planning Board
City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development project
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.
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.
Honest Engineer Disagreement Permissibility BER 65-9 Highway Routes
State highway department cost estimates for interstate bypass routes
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
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.
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.
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.
Engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
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.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Landfill BER 79-2
Landfill higher-contour design public controversy
Town council's authority to resolve the design dispute
Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
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.
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.
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.'
Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
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.
These decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
Public Policy Open Debate Resolution — BER 79-2 Landfill Controversy
Public controversy over the higher-contour landfill design and methane/groundwater safety concerns
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.
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.
these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
Public Welfare Paramount Public Hearing Technical Testimony
City Planning Board regulatory decision on waterfront development
Public health, safety, and welfare implications of commercial development
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.
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.
Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City Planning Board Hearing
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.
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.
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.
Subjective Policy Balancing Acknowledgment — Present Case Environmental Impacts
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
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.
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.
As the previous cases demonstrated engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
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.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Relevance Pertinence Judgment Traffic Noise Pollution City Planning Board
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.
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.
In preparing and delivering the public hearing presentation
Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Design Public Challenge Post-Decision Acceptance
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.
Engineer C (BER 79-2 resident challenger)
Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
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.
After the appropriate public authority's decision on the landfill design
Engineer C BER 79-2 Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment of Engineers A and B
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.
Engineer C (resident engineer challenger) in BER 79-2
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.
After the public authority's decision on the landfill expansion design
Engineer Public Testimony Role Present Case City Planning Board Hearing
Developer F's commercial development project presentation
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.
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.
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.
Environmental Benefit vs. Traffic and Pollution Tradeoff in Waterfront Development
Throughout the public hearing and planning process
The waterfront development project's dual nature — environmental improvement and commercial-use adverse impacts
Not resolved within the case text; planning board decision pending
Engineer A presents environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland while being aware of countervailing commercial development impacts
Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 79-2 Landfill Design Dispute
Public contention that the higher-level landfill design concept was environmentally unsound
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.
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.
while certainly Engineers A and B should consider the technical data each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
Honesty Obligation Engineer A City Planning Board Presentation
City Planning Board public hearing presentation
Responses to Board questions about the waterfront development
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.
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.
Engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Objectivity Obligation Engineer A Waterfront Development Presentation
Professional judgment determination of relevance and pertinence of traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts
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.
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.
Engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
Professional Judgment as Environmental Trade-Off Arbiter — BER 79-2 Landfill
Design of landfill expansion to higher final contours with minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
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.
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.
Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism Invoked in Developer F Hearing
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.
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.
Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's project
Noise and air pollution impacts of waterfront development
Traffic increase impact of waterfront development
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.
The question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony Invoked by Engineer A's Conditional Disclosure Willingness
Engineer A's responsive testimony before City Planning Board
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.
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.
Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony
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.
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.
Throughout the public hearing, contingent on direct questioning by the City Planning Board
Engineer A Direct Question Complete Honest Answer City Planning Board
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.
During and throughout the public hearing before the City Planning Board
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.
Multi-Witness Hearing Process Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
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.
During and after the public hearing before the City Planning Board
Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer A Developer F Waterfront Development
Developer F's waterfront development project presentation
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.
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.
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A as Developer F's Retained Engineer
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.
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.
Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 65-9 Highway Route Dispute
Public letter criticizing highway department route B cost estimates and proposing alternative route D
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.
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.
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.
Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Completeness — Present Case City Planning Board
City Planning Board public hearing on the proposed waterfront commercial development
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.
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.
Other engineers attending the public hearing provided testimony about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues associated with the proposed development.
Objectivity Principle Applied to Engineer A's Client-Retained Presentation
Engineer A's technical presentation before the City Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
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.
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.
Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Landfill Design BER 79-2
Balancing landfill capacity need against methane gas migration and groundwater pollution risks
Sanitary landfill redesign to higher final contours
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.
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.
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.'
Each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment.
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.
There is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.
{'jurisdiction': 'City X', 'function': 'Development project approval via public hearing'}
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.
{'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Other Hearing Witnesses'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Developer F'}
City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board
responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board
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.
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Obligation
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.
Throughout the public hearing presentation and any subsequent testimony
Engineer A Present Case Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering
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.
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.
During the City Planning Board public hearing
Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Professional Judgment Exercise
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.
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.
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
In preparation for and during the City Planning Board public hearing
Engineer A Public Hearing Technical Testimony Public Welfare Role City X
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.
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.
Public Welfare Paramount Assessed in City X Waterfront Hearing Context
City X residents affected by traffic, noise, and air pollution from the waterfront development
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.
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.
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.
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability
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.
Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER 65-9)
Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
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.
At the time of public letter publication
Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Highway Route Disagreement Public Letter
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.
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.
At the time of public letter publication in the local press
Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure
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.
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.
During the City Planning Board public hearing presentation and any subsequent questioning
Engineer C BER 79-2 Landfill Public Challenge Ethical Permissibility
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.
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.
During the period of public controversy over the landfill design
Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A at City X Public Hearing
City X waterfront development public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
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.
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.
Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development
Engineer A's presentation of waterfront development design to City Planning Board, including environmental benefits highlighted and traffic/noise/air pollution impacts potentially omitted
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.
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.
Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use.
In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront
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.
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.
Engineers A B BER 79-2 Landfill Design Professional Judgment Trade-Off
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.
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.
there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects.
During the design and redesign process for the sanitary landfill
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
Engineer A's representation of Developer F before the City Planning Board
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.
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.
Engineers A and B BER 79-2 Landfill Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Judgment
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.
Engineer A (town engineer) and Engineer B (consulting engineer) in BER 79-2
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.
Throughout the design and redesign process for the landfill expansion
certainly Engineers A and B should consider the technical data each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
Relevance and Pertinence Disclosure Standard — Present Case Traffic/Noise/Air Pollution
Decision whether to disclose traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the proposed waterfront commercial development at the City Planning Board hearing
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.
Honesty Principle Applied to Engineer A's Selective Presentation
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.
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.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case
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.
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.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Developer F Public Hearing Presentation
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.
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.
Throughout the engagement with Developer F and the public hearing presentation
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Disclosure Assessment BER Present Case
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.
Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
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.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Commercial development engineering', 'context': 'Public hearing on commercial development'}
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.
{'type': 'presents_to', 'target': 'City Planning Board Regulatory Authority'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Developer client (implied)'}
{'type': 'witness_alongside', 'target': 'Public Hearing Witness Engineer'}
Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
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.
Engineer A Non-Volunteering Adverse Impacts Public Hearing Developer F
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.
Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Adverse Impact Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
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.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Commercial development engineering, environmental impact', 'engagement': 'Retained by developer for public hearing presentation'}
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.
{'type': 'presenting_to', 'target': 'Public Body'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Commercial Developer Client'}
Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure Engineer
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
the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Waterfront development design and environmental assessment', 'disclosure_behavior': 'Selective — disclosed environmental benefits, withheld traffic/pollution impacts unless questioned'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer F'}
{'type': 'peer_witness', 'target': 'Other Engineers at Hearing'}
{'type': 'regulatory_audience', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}
Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project
Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design
Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board