March/April 2020

On Ethics: You Be the Judge
Play Time or Pay-to-Play Time?

A new playground will benefit the community—and maybe a public official.

What Do You Think?

Was it ethical, under the facts, for Worden to ask Gleason and her firm to donate engineering services to design a playground on behalf of a local not-for-profit organization that the city council member is active in and supports?

Would it be ethical for Gleason to donate engineering services for the playground design under the circumstances?

What the Board of Ethical Review Said

The obligation of professional engineers to be of constructive service to the community and serve the public interest has been a hallmark of professional engineering. Professional engineers contribute to communities by serving on public boards and civic groups, volunteering with not-for-profit community and youth groups, supporting and contributing to important public and private initiatives, and in many other ways.

In performing their professional services, professional engineers must be mindful that such service is personal in nature and a reflection of their values and commitment. Such service in many ways reflects who they are as professionals but should be viewed as separate and apart from what should be expected from them in their business relations with clients. To this point, it would be a mistake for either a professional engineer or a client to mix or confuse an individual’s role in performing as a professional engineer and the individual’s role in making contributions to the public. While these two roles may be complementary, there is a potential danger when the two are intermingled.

In this case, a representative of a public client (Worden) has an expectation (and express authority) that a professional engineer (Gleason) will donate engineering services which, while a public good (the design of a local playground) that will benefit the community, will also have the effect of enhancing the personal and political interests of the representative of the public client (Worden). In effect, Gleason and her firm are under a degree of duress—the implicit promise of future work or the withholding of future work—if Gleason does not accede to Worden’s personal request to donate services.

The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered cases involving gifts to public officials, including state department of transportation employees. In BER Case 05-6, the BER was faced with a series of gift scenarios and in conclusion noted that engineers must be mindful of all rules and regulations that would apply to government employees and would ultimately govern. Engineers have an obligation to adhere to those rules and regulations, which may prohibit the receipt of such gifts. In addition, for parties contracting with state government, engineers may be barred from providing such gifts to government employees.

In this case, Gleason may have had a desire to support this initiative separate and apart from Worden’s request to support the playground project. However, Worden improperly entangled Gleason and her firm’s professional services with his request for support for the playground project. Gleason must clearly communicate with Worden—a party who has influence and authority over the selection of engineering firms to perform work for the town—that Gleason has no intention of abiding by his request to assist with the playground project as a condition for future work with the town or other public work. Any other action would amount to an effort to make a contribution (in-kind services) to influence the award of a future contract.

Conclusion

It was not ethical for Worden to ask Gleason and her firm to donate engineering services for the design of a playground on behalf of a local not-for-profit organization that he is active in and supports.

It would not be ethical for Gleason to agree to donate engineering services for the design of the playground under the circumstances.

NSPE Code References

III.2., III.3., III.5.a., and III.6.

For more information, see Case No. 16-11.