Skip to main content
On the Waterfront

March 2007

ON ETHICS: YOU BE THE JUDGE
On the Waterfront

Is a PE ethically obligated to say that a development could increase traffic and cause other problems?

The Situation
M. S. Errey, P.E., is retained by Mawadepro Inc. for a major waterfront development project in Harbortown. As part of the process for approving Mawadepro's project, Errey is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the Harbortown waterfront to the Harbortown Planning Board. Errey makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the Harbortown Planning Board. Errey highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland. This anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Errey is aware of these factors but was not specifically questioned about them and does not volunteer this fact. Had Errey been questioned by the Harbortown Planning Board, Errey would have provided testimony concerning these issues. Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.

What Do You Think?
Was it ethical for Errey to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could significantly increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution?

What the Board of Ethical Review Said
It was not unethical for Errey to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.

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 on people's lives. Because of the effect that their testimony may have on public policy discussions of this type, engineers who are involved in obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

This 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. Environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests. 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.

The question in this case 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. Engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts. Errey's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not "relevant and pertinent."

This scenario was based on NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 05-4. Free single copies are available from NSPE Member Services at 888-285-6773.

NSPE's Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted from a variety of sources, including NSPE members. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER. This opinion is intended as guidance only. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and that appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.