Discussion: View Thread

Code of ethics reboot

  • 1.  Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 07-31-2019 02:58 PM
    There was an article published last week on the ASCE News page: "Refresh on the ASCE Code of ethics."

    I'm one of the members of the task committee working on this project, and wanted to start this thread to allow a forum for general thoughts and comments on the article, as well as to raise awareness.   

    I am tagging those who commented on the article so far for further comment here if desired. @Monica McCluskey @John McLaughlin ​​​​​@Martha Vangeem​​ @Arun Kumar Rao @Charles Fowler @Joshua Steelman​​​​ @Arun Kumar

    ------------------------------
    Stephanie Slocum P.E.,M.ASCE
    Founder
    Engineers Rising LLC

    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 07-31-2019 04:15 PM
    I like the overall concept.  However, I am concerned about putting Society on equal footing with Peers/Employers/Profession/Clients.  I would include public safety and the environment under Society.  The pressures to compromise on public safety and the environment often stem from those other branches.  If the preamble continues to hold safety paramount and becomes more inclusive, I would support it.  Under that umbrella would be job site safety, protecting the owner from future claims, and checking the work of other engineers (looking out for each other). 

    The code of ethics is usually adopted by state boards in some manner.  Will there be an opportunity for them to provide feedback?

    ------------------------------
    Chad Morrison P.E.,M.ASCE
    Professional Engineer
    Greenville RI
    (401)231-4870 EXT 2207
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-02-2019 01:24 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-02-2019 02:39 PM
    The "Refresh" article includes: "The task committee's approach emphasizes usability and enforceability, dispensing with the canons and instead creates a hierarchy of stakeholders within an engineer's ethical responsibilities." I take this to mean different stakeholders are not on the same footing with one another. Society ranks above Environment ranks above Profession ranks above Clients/Employers ranks above Peers. Am I misunderstanding the hierarchy

    W. M. Kim Roddis, Ph.D., P.E.(KS), F. ASCE, Professor, Vienna, VA





  • 4.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-03-2019 09:46 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-20-2019 01:03 PM

    I think Kim Roddis raises a good point.  There should not be numbers, but rather these different buckets should be regarded as pillars in holding up ethical behavior, and if one is weak then it threatens the overall.

    And yes, "environment" is different from "society" and should be maintained separately.



    ------------------------------
    Charles Haas F.ASCE
    LD Betz Professor of Environ. Eng. & Department Head - Civil, Architectural and Environmental Eng.
    Drexel University
    Philadelphia PA
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-01-2019 10:43 AM
    I'm curious how this change will impact students preparing for the FE exam.  Will NCEES adapt the FE for the ethics questions in for a CE exam?  Probably not, since I suppose all disciplines use the same questions pool, which I believe are all based on NSPE Canons.   When teaching students, the parallel structure of the Codes allows educators to teach ASCE code and still preparing students for the NSPE-based FE.

    ------------------------------
    Timothy Murphy P.E.,M.ASCE
    Professor
    Trine University
    Angola IN
    (260) 665-4216
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-01-2019 10:58 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-02-2019 04:09 PM
    Timothy,
    Great question and it is fantastic that you are thinking in terms of your students' success on the FE.  I am a member of this ASCE Task Committee and I also serve on the NCEES Civil Engineering FE Exam Development Committee.  The ethics and professional responsibility questions for the FE exam are drawn from a common pool of questions that are shared over multiple disciplines.  In addition, those questions are based on the NCEES Model Law (which is a good read and is part of the exam ref. document).  So to address your question, ASCE's current process will not impact students as they prepare for the ethics and professional responsibility questions on the FE exam.

    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D.,P.E.,F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    West Point NY
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-01-2019 11:21 AM
    Thanks Brock for the quick feedback.

    ------------------------------
    Timothy Murphy P.E.,M.ASCE
    Professor
    Trine University
    Angola IN
    (260) 665-4216
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-02-2019 01:28 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-02-2019 01:27 PM
    I have concerns about how the new code will be implemented internationally. The existing ASCE code, as well as that of the NSPE, was developed in an open society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society.  How can the spirit of the code be successfully implemented in a closed society? Would a student chapter be able to compete on an equal footing when it is from a country with no ABET accredited programs open to some students because of gender? Religion? Race? Ethnicity? How would a professional manage to issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner when there is no freedom of speech in the country? 

    This is not a new problem, but one ASCE has been dealing with for decades. (International expansion, ethics, and prohibited foreign trade practices 
    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)9742-597X(1994)10:5(34), The ASCE committee of global principles for professional conduct https://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%291532-6748%282009%299%3A3%28144%29, to mention just a couple of background documents).

    I think it is necessary to address this on-going problem explicitly in the development of the new code.

    W. M. Kim Roddis, Ph.D., P.E.(KS), F. ASCE, Professor, Vienna, VA




  • 9.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-02-2019 03:35 PM
    There is a hierarchy as follows. This is what the graphic in the article was trying to portray with the numbers.

    The preamble is over everything. Then, we have 1. Society; 2. Environment; 3. Profession; 4. Employer/Client; 5. Peers

    @Chad Morrison and @Kim Roddis, let us know if this does not answer the question.​​​


    ------------------------------
    Stephanie Slocum P.E.,M.ASCE
    Founder
    Engineers Rising LLC

    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-02-2019 04:07 PM

    Are you saying the numbers also indicate hierarchical position? That is to say, is Environment higher in the hierarchy than Peers?

    I don't think the graphic from Refresh conveys a clear hierachy.

    "A hierarchy (from the Greek hierarkhia, "rule of a high priest", from hierarkhes, "president of sacred rites") is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy

    Instead of using a sort of Venn diagram in-plan representation with the Preamble 'on top of' the 5 Stakeholders, a clearer graphic would have the Preamble at the top of the figure with the 5 Stakeholders in order down the page, perhaps inset at each step to show that a Stakeholder with a higher number dominates a Stakeholder with a lower number.

    Before the committee finalizes its graphic, it would be a good idea to test it with ASCE members who haven't see it before to see what they think it means. This seems worthwhile since with three people (you, me, and Chad) we have three different interpretations from seeing the current graphic.




    ------------------------------
    W. M. Kim Roddis P.E.,F.ASCE
    The George Washington University
    Washington DC
    (202) 994-4901
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-11-2019 09:11 PM

    I thank Bill Hayden and Mark Gilligan for getting back to my previous post about the implicit assumption of the code (existing and future) operating within an open society and the difficulties posed to applying it within a closed society. From my previous post:

    "I have concerns about how the new code will be implemented internationally. The existing ASCE code, as well as that of the NSPE, was developed in an open society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society.  How can the spirit of the code be successfully implemented in a closed society? … I think it is necessary to address this on-going problem explicitly in the development of the new code."

    Bill, your response to my post focused on the gender issue within an open society. Yes, I used gender as one of my examples in my previous post, but my point was application within a closed society. The WSJ article is explicitly about the U.S., an open society. What I was and am trying to say is the development of the new code should be a well-informed process. Being informed includes being explicitly aware of the context difference of the code of ethics within open and closed societies.

    Mark, you pointed out that "Introducing social justice issues into the code of ethics has the potential of creating unintended consequences."  I agree. I am talking about an informed process, not a product containing social justice issues.

    The on-going problem I am trying to talk about is that currently there are many places in the world where the current ASCE code cannot be followed without breaking laws and social norms. Those developing the new code should be aware of this problem and think about how it will be dealt with by ASCE members in other countries.

    ASCE is an international organization, not an American organization. The present and future ASCE Code of Ethics needs to be functional in many societal contexts.



    ------------------------------
    W. M. Kim Roddis P.E., F.ASCE
    The George Washington University
    Washington DC
    (202) 994-4901
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-15-2019 10:23 AM
    Hello, I worked in some parts of the world, the Code was follow-able. Also it is quite similar to rules in the world as one of the articles in our Engineering Journal pointed out.

    To my experience the largest risk factors are persons "not bound by professional conduct" in the same office. What would help the single engineer is to promote and enforce the Engineering Ethic Code on a Cooperate Level. Holding Companies accountable will make Compliance Departments our supporters and amplifiers.

    ------------------------------
    Tino Bretschneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Elmwood Park IL
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-02-2019 04:09 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-02-2019 04:09 PM
    Where can I download the proposals?

    I believe that the code of ethics does not reflect the beliefs and interests of members of ASCE.  To start we should ask how the current code of ethics is used by the membership.  I will suggest that most do not pay it any attention.

    We need to understand and spell out the problems with the current code of ethics and how it is used.  Of particular concern is my perception that many attempt to use it to establish legal duties that could result in increased civil liability for engineers.  This effort should be informed by the impact it may have on the viability of engineering firms.

    The first cannon says that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties."  This is often used to imply that the interests of the public, which are not well defined, always trump the interests of our clients.  I suggest that this is inconsistent with our legal obligations to our clients.  It also ignores the reality that a professional must always balance competing interests such as clients desires, our duty to the public and our desire to make a profit.

    Yes we have duties to the public but they are more limited and nuanced.  We should be sophisticated enough that we can recognize that we do not live in a black and white world.

    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan P.E.,M.ASCE
    Berkeley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-03-2019 05:09 PM
    I'm not sure I like the hierarchical approach. Maybe if I saw the written Preamble it might clear things up for me. Adding sustainability to the Environmental Canon concerns me.  How is sustainability defined?  I believe that if you asked 5 members to define sustainability you might get 5 different definitions.  On a single project, diligent and ethical engineers might reasonably disagree on what is sustainable. The code should not allow ambiguities.

    ------------------------------
    Bevin Beaudet P.E.,M.ASCE
    President/Owner
    Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E., LLC.
    West Palm Beach FL
    (561)373-4442
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-05-2019 10:45 AM
    Mark
    Thank you for providing your perspective on the current ASCE Code of Ethics.  It is interesting to note that many of the suggestions you made regarding a process for evaluating the current Code and the current state of practice were very similar to the process used by the Task Committee.  

    There will be many opportunities for future review and input at all levels of ASCE (to include individual members) as this moves forward.  I encourage you to stay engaged.

    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D.,P.E.,F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    West Point NY
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-03-2019 05:08 PM

    I like this society-oriented hierarchy. Contrary to what some people seem to think (and even the way many who say otherwise might end up behaving in practice), your ethical duties to your clients and employees are largely contractual and, therefore, limited. Your ethical responsibility to The World is ever-present. It is present when you were born, and it only grows as you mature.



    ------------------------------
    John Ragan EIT,A.M.ASCE
    PITTSBURGH PA
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-04-2019 07:33 PM
    I would like to see respect of diversity and inclusion explicitly stated in the peers section. A good article is here https://news.asce.org/respecting-diversity-and-inclusion-its-the-ethical-thing-to-do/,

    There was also a good article on this in the July/Aug. issue of Civil Engineering, which argues that discouraging women from STEM careers violates the current code of ethics. I would like to see it made explicit, though.

    Melanie Sattler, Ph.D., P.E.
    Professor
    Civil Engineering
    University of Texas at Arlington

    ------------------------------
    Melanie Sattler Ph.D.,P.E.,M.ASCE
    Associate Professor
    University of Texas at Arlington
    Arlington TX
    (817)794-0925
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-04-2019 10:49 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-04-2019 10:49 PM

    Thanks, Stephanie, for initiating this thread.

    Like others, I teach 'ethics' to our civil engineering students - and have for over 20 years.  From that perspective, certainly it is advantageous that ASCE's Code of Ethics shares the format (and much of the same language) as NSPE, ASME, and others - particularly when prepping students for the FE, and when using ASCE's "A Question of Ethics" cases for analysis and application.  I fully realize, however, that practitioners may respond better to a format other than "Canons".

    I agree with a couple of comments made in response to the article itself -- is a new organization/format demonstrably an "improvement"?  Is this simply change-for-change's-sake?  In addition, there should be an opportunity provided to the general membership for reaction/comment to the proposed changes.

    On a more pedantic note, I was curious about the graphic included in the article - the middle circle says "Preamble: Overarching behavior ethical principals".  Two things: (1) I hope this was not supposed to be a sentence (I am guessing there are two items in the Preamble - overarching behavior - and - ethical principles); and (2) should it not be "principles" rather than "principals" (as it is spelled in the graphic)?  Hmmm...

    Again, thanks for the topic!!!



    ------------------------------
    Kevin Hall Ph.D.,P.E.,M.ASCE
    Professor
    Univ Of Arkansas
    Fayetteville AR
    (479) 575-8695
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-05-2019 10:58 AM
    Kevin
    Thanks for your comments.  I wish to assure you that this is not change for the sake of change.  The ASCE Board established this Task Committee.  The charge presented to the Task Committee was to in essence write a code of ethics for ASCE from scratch.   Further, the Task Committee was strongly encouraged to not reference the existing Code (write a new Code as if there were not already an existing Code).  That is an incredible exercise to participate in.

    The ball is just getting rolling with this activity.  There will be significant engagement with ASCE members at all levels of the organization.  In fact, an initial outreach to all ASCE Committees, Institutes, and Regions is just about to launch.  Subsequent outreach activities will directly engage individual members.  There will be space for all voices in this process.

    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D.,P.E.,F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    West Point NY
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-07-2019 05:00 PM

    Wednesday, August 7, 2019

    Hi Melanie, thanks for noting diversity, inclusion, and the current reality that while under the current ASCE Code of Ethics discouraging women from STEM Careers is a violation, it needs to be more explicit.

    I really like what Bevin asserts, "The code should not allow ambiguities."

    And then Charles adds "There should not be numbers, but rather these different buckets should be regarded as pillars in holding up ethical behavior, and if one is weak then it threatens the overall.

     

    • OBSERVATION

    What will make ASCE's next Code of Ethics credible to the public-at-large, private and public sector clients, and those young women and men who decide to enter the profession will be its ability to pass the 'snicker' test.

     

    'Snicker', the natural instinct one has to spontaneous hold a suppressed laugh.

     

    o   Real-World Challenges Today:

    1. Our professional women in university being sexually harassed by faculty and others.
    2. Women engineers in the workplace being overlooked and/or underpaid for career development.
    3. Women engineering professionals leaving the civil engineering field.
    4. Women engineers forming their own groups, sans men.
    5. Executive men engineers doing what they can to keep the lid tight on the above.

     

     

    • SUGGESTION

    Bring in your men and women engineers between the ages of 27 to 39 to be part of this Code of Ethics exercise, and let some of the more mature engineers serve as "Review Boards."

    Cheers,

    Bill

     



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-10-2019 11:08 PM

    I wish to build a bit on Kim's earlier closing point "I think it is necessary to address this on-going problem explicitly in the development of the new code."

    And I will be uncharacteristically brief!

    Each of us, as well of others not yet in this online chat-dialogue have personal, sincere, professional, and other reasons for their assertive positions. Today's Wall Street Journal, 10-11AUG2019,[1] offers still another, "Economics 101."

    As the article states "The growing clout of women as drivers of the U.S. economy will radically alter the business and investing landscape in years to come."

    ". . .Ignoring the changes is the equivalent of sticking one's head in shifting sand."

                                                              --Justin LaHart and Lauren Silva Laughlin

    [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-women-bring-home-a-bigger-slice-of-the-bacon-11565343002 



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 22.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-11-2019 09:52 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-11-2019 12:36 PM
    Introducing social justice issues into the code of ethics has the potential of creating unintended consequences.  In my experience these general statements are often distorted by some individuals.

    For example what is the engineers obligation when he feels that the building should be designed for performance better than the code requires for seismic or wind effects but this would result in added costs and the client is clear that he does not want this higher level of performance.  This could get real messy real fast.


    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan SE., M.ASCE
    Berkeley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-11-2019 12:37 PM
    Hi Mark, thanks for your comment.
    For myself, I would appreciate a clarification, if that's ok with you.

    My prior two posts addressed the 'screaming need' for clarity to name and include women.
    The 2nd post,  from the WSJ, was based solely on the changing times with the very positive impact women
    are making in the economy of business....which we expect will increase, if not accelerate.

    Q. Was your "Social Justice" reflection about that?

    Thanks for your time in considering my question.
    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-12-2019 12:30 PM
      |   view attached

    RESEARCH:

    Balanced Code of Ethics – "Open" Versus "Closed" Society

    Dear Colleagues,

    It finally occurred to me that we probably are not the first professional society to have to address the challenges Kim keeps reminding us of.

    Therefore, I assembled some limited examples to highlight what other professions have done.

    N.B. What is shared herein is *NOT* offered for any 'cut & paste' but rather to suggest we need to develop a specialized cross-functional, multi-disciplined[1] task force Program, with a Projects Plan[2] and its' usual 'trimmings' to get off the "Well, here's what I think" wagon, and do the professional work we've been educated, trained, and conditioned to do. . . .Including arms-length Phase-Gate Reviews.

    Moreover, as usual, of course I may be wrong!

    Cheers,

    Bill

    Attachment  XYZ"

        Some References Without Either Recommendation Nor Prejudice Follow:

    [1] Means non-engineers, sociocultural psychologists, beaucoup women <40 years young, and > 27,

    multicultural, yada, yada, yada.

    [2] WBS, Risk Management Plan, etc., etc., etc.



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)

    docx
    Attachment XYZ.docx   23 KB 1 version


  • 25.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-13-2019 03:36 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-13-2019 03:35 PM
      |   view attached

    2nd Release: Balanced Code of Ethics – "Open" Versus "Closed" Society

     

    To help those with limited time, I decided to provide sources with 'hotlinks.'

    To be clear the documents in this second release are not duplicates of the initial release. 

     

    8/12/19 11:12 PM         W. M. Hayden Jr.



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)



  • 26.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-14-2019 02:54 PM
      |   view attached
    Right this very moment, I am wondering "Who has the road map for all of this?"

    Suggested citation: National Academy of Engineering. 2017. Overcoming Challenges to Infusing Ethics into the Development of Engineers: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24821.

    The attachment has a few points from the above referenced workshop.

    When I reflect on the dialogue so far within this chat-space, and then review what faculty and others have been pushing in the "Infusing Ethics" part of the educational programs of our universities, I am flabbergasted ....is that even a word?
    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)



  • 27.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-14-2019 03:08 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-14-2019 03:08 PM
    Hello Bill,
    Thanks for your post.  I am not clear regarding your question of "who has the road map for all of this?"  Are you specifically asking who is involved with this process?
    Regards,

    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    West Point NY
    ------------------------------



  • 28.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-06-2019 08:37 AM
    Hi Brock,
    I certainly trust you were not 'holding your breath' waiting for my reply!

    Q. "Are you specifically asking who is involved with this process?"

    'Yes,' given the significance of this eventual 'guiding light,' do we have a named task force, time-specific plan,
    strategies beyond this online chat, to solicit input?

    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-15-2019 01:26 PM
    Bill
    Thank you for clarifying your original question.  ASCE President Robin Kemper appointed a Task Committee back in July 2018.  Members of that Task Committee are:

    Brock E. Barry, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE; Chair

    Taylor Boileau, S.M.ASCE

    Lawrence Chiarelli, Esq., P.E., F.ASCE

    Monte Philips, Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE

    Anna Pridmore, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE

    Stephanie Slocum, P.E., LEED BD+C, M.ASCE

    Peter Terry, P.E., F.ASCE

    Tara Hoke, ASCE General Counsel; Staff Contact

    Use of this Collaboration thread was just an initial step in the process.  We are currently conducting weekly meetings with representatives of interested ASCE committees.  Those meeting will continue into mid-November.  By early December we anticipate opening up that process for comment by all members of ASCE.  

    Have faith that ASCE is in fact implementing a well-designed processes for obtain feedback, incorporate edits, and building member consensus.
    Regards
    Brock



    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    West Point NY
    ------------------------------



  • 30.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-14-2019 04:40 PM
    Much of the talk about ethics seems to be by professors teaching ethics.  The intention is to apply these ethical admonitions to practicing engineers who had no input into heir development.

    I will suggest that by the time students reach college they have already adopted an ethical framework and that much of which passes for ethical training has to do with communicating a specific set of rules proposed by others.  These rules can be memorized but the question is does this memorization change their behavior.

    It has been more eloquently said that you cannot convince somebody of something that is in conflict with their self interest.

    I have also seen some individuals to apply the ethical cannons absolutely to support a particular agenda.  This game playing is a turnoff.

    Let us be less judgmental and focus on why certain behavior is more beneficial in the long term.  As I see it the fundamental rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan SE
    Berkeley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 31.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-16-2019 10:01 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 10-16-2019 10:00 AM
    Hello, yes I agree.
    But from my perspective a ethic code should have an allowance for some more idealistic formulations.

    I still miss in the whole discussion the lessons learned regarding organizational / people interaction in failure causes.
    Here comes into play what you mention with peoples best interest. It seems the "interest" is sometimes only "survival" in a group or company and imposes a burden to the single engineer. The question must be, why is the interest of the group or organization not in line with those of the Engineer? What is wrong in the social framework?

    There are many Ethic and Compliance departments on organizational level. There is also Company Registration as design firms in may states. Why does the Society not take advantage of those things and impose Ethical standards also onto the group level?

    ------------------------------
    Tino Bretschneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Elmwood Park IL
    ------------------------------



  • 32.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-16-2019 02:43 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-16-2019 02:43 PM
    Regarding "Stakeholder 4," The statement should expressly state that the engineer has a fiduciary duty to clients/employers. Until we commit to the best interests of those we serve, we will not be held in the same esteem as other professions.

    ------------------------------
    Sam Furuta P.E., M.ASCE
    Retired
    Sam L Furuta
    Cerritos CA
    ------------------------------



  • 33.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-16-2019 03:07 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-16-2019 03:06 PM
    I believe that an engineers primary duty is to his or her client but suggest that it  does not always result in a fiduciary duty.  A fiduciary duty would expose the engineer to greater liability.  The reality is that some times the relationship between the engineer and his client is closer to an arms length relationship.

    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan S.E.
    Berkeley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 34.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-16-2019 04:05 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-16-2019 04:05 PM
    Of course fiduciary duty increases exposure to potential liability. It also increases client/employer trust and, hopefully, competence in practice. Actual liability is only a problem if something is not done right and/or efficiently. Professional liability insurance and/or is always available if risk is the concern.
    Sam Furuta





  • 35.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-17-2019 11:30 PM
    If you are assuming that the engineer will always be perfect then I suggest you talk with your professional liability carrier.  The advice that we get  from lawyers and insurance carriers is that you should never comit to perfection.  If a fiduciary obligation exists it is much easier to prove guilt.

    My understanding is that professional liability insurance does not cover a fiduciary obligation.

    A fiduciary obligation will likely increase anxiety but will not increase competence.

    If the ASCE code of ethics promotes the idea of a fiduciary duty it will be throwing its members under the bus.

    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan S.E., M.ASCE
    Berkeley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 36.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-18-2019 11:07 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-18-2019 11:07 AM
    A fiduciary duty does not speak to perfection. Engineers are human after all. My nonlegal understanding is that it requires the following:
         - Best efforts on behalf of the client/employer
         - Not acting contrary to the interests of the client/employer
         - Holding the interest of the client/employer over the engineer's interest

    If the engineering profession as a whole accepted a fiduciary duty, the liability insurance would be available though, probably, an increased cost.

    Legal advice will always try to limit/reduce risk. We should not let it veto our efforts to improve our profession. If we are looking to increase society's trust/confidence/ reliance on our profession through our code of ethics, we will need to accept increased risk and cost.

    No one is looking to throw anyone "under the bus." We need to discuss this type of issue if we want to increase the prestige of the engineering profession.





    ------------------------------
    Sam Furuta P.E., M.ASCE
    Retired
    Sam L Furuta
    Cerritos CA
    ------------------------------



  • 37.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 08:14 AM

    Hello,

    Thank you for bringing this topic to all of our attentions.  Despite the fact that my comments are generally critical of the overall direction, I really do appreciate the work that the task committee is putting into this.  If I could, I would like to bring the thread back to its beginning. It seems that we've gotten into the specifics of how the sub-sub-subsections should be written, who should be explicitly singled out, etc.–which are all important to hash out in time-but it would appear to me that the intent of this thread was to examine the hierarchical model, the different "buckets" that the task committee has established, and what the subsections should be in each bucket.

    The article originally linked (See Here) states that, "The task committee's approach emphasizes usability and enforceability." In my opinion, I don't think that ranking ASCE's ethical priorities accomplishes the former and I also don't think the benefits of the later out weight its costs.

    When examining "usability", the different types of ethical issues we encounter on a routine basis are typically independent of other "stakeholders".  My decision to operate within my areas of competency is not affected by my commitment to environmental sustainability.  Similarly, my commitment to mentorship is not influenced by my commitment to professional honesty. These can and do stand alone. As a result, I don't see the value in a hierarchical approach in these circumstances.

    However, in complicated circumstances where there is conflict between "stakeholders", I think that setting a rigid hierarchy does a disservice because it implies a linear approach to ethical dilemmas that does not exist. This is because ethical questions of competing societal, environmental, and client interests require a level of risk analysis that is not readily available (if at all) and is often up to how the engineer personally internalizes risk. Absent of a sophisticated risk analysis (which itself is subject to judgement), if two people can interpret risk differently, how is anyone to judge what is ethical and what is not in a hierarchical model? This is a question that I think the committee needs to address.

    There are also times where the hierarchy may need be reordered on a case by case basis.  For instance, I could imagine scenarios where designing a project to be more inclusive of different socio-economic and minority groups (or some other societal benefit) could adversely affect the environment.  Think about routing a highway.  We can either put it through a low-income neighborhood or someplace else at a significantly higher environmental cost.  In such a situation, this model would make it unethical to take a more environmentally sustainable approach.  While I certainly believe societal issues should be high on our list, explicitly ranking it first is not something I can support as a blanket statement because the environmental cost may be astronomical.  I'm sure that there are other similar scenarios that would fit here and I think we need to be cautious not to box ourselves in.

    When considering this, I am also concerned with the enforceability aspect as well because true ethical dilemmas are not clean cut. To echo other comments I've seen on this thread, I believe the role of the Code is to inform a process rather than provide a flow chart.  Unfortunately, that allows wiggle room for people who would abuse the system, but that is the reality of the world we live in.  The important thing is that we are working complex issues out as professionals who are considering the impacts of our decisions. 

    If the task committee is to build something from scratch, I think that a pillar type model would be much more appropriate.



    ------------------------------
    Andrew Wells A.M.ASCE
    Engineering Assistant III
    Juneau AK
    ------------------------------



  • 38.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 10:42 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-19-2019 10:41 AM
    I think Sam has defined why a professional engineer cannot have a fiduciary duty to their clients.

    - Not acting contrary to the interests of the client/employer

    As engineers, we have ultimate responsibility to the public, which are not always our clients.  Our clients are often required to do things that cost extra because they are in the best interest of the public.  Some examples are pollution prevent, stormwater quality, flood prevention.  

    As professional engineers, we have ethical responsibilities above and beyond those of our clients, and therefore cannot always hold our client's interest as paramount.

    When all things are in balance, we have to hold the public interests with respect to health and safety first, our clients interests second, and our interests last.  Engineers are about the only profession that has an ethical responsibility to those that are not the direct recipients of our services.  How many people know the name of the engineering company that designed the water systems in their neighborhood.  It is not until an engineer fails to look out for the safety of the public first, that people start knowing our names.

    Ethics are for increasing accountability, not increasing prestige.  I am not sure that we should be looking for increasing prestige for our profession by advertising our ethical guidelines.  We should be looking to increase prestige for our profession by increasing the awareness of engineers in people's daily lives.  Advertise how many engineers are involved in construction projects, tell people how many astronauts are engineers, explain the role of the engineer in buildings and train stations, and hospitals. etc.  

    The impacts of Engineering on the world is not well understood, and its because it is not well understood, that we have less prestige, not because our impact on society is not profound.   And there is that math thing that we as engineers are good at, and most people in the world eyes just glaze over when we talk about stability equations, rational method, and fourier series.  We could help with that by participating in the world more, rather than just quietly making it work better.

    ------------------------------
    Dwayne Culp, Ph.D., Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
    Culp Engineering, LLC
    Rosenberg TX
    ------------------------------



  • 39.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 10:14 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-19-2019 10:13 AM
    Hello
    when I look to the latest Engineering Disasters like "Volkswagen Diesel", "Boing 737 Max", …. it appears to me, that a hostile work climate regarding ethics might have been a significant factor.
    If I see also on what Compliance Officers not- focus on it also seems that the most improvement lays in making Companies a part of engineering ethics.
    Yes, the wording from the current ethic code might be old and could be improved, but the main challenge seems to bring companies as organization in board and hold accountable.




    ------------------------------
    Tino Bretschneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Elmwood Park IL
    ------------------------------



  • 40.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 12:58 PM
    Edited by Stephanie Slocum 08-19-2019 09:53 PM
    This comment is in response to other comments on this thread regarding diversity and inclusion being made more explicit. 

    The rewrite requires careful consideration of all the input we receive in the collaboration process. We won't know exactly how a particular topic will be incorporated into the rewrite until after we've collaborated. That said, our Task Committee itself is about 40% women, and has a mixture of member backgrounds, including engineers from private consulting practice backgrounds (like myself), and also engineers with academic and law backgrounds, as well as varied demographic groups.  

    As Brock Barry commented earlier, we have just begun the process of engaging the various ASCE committees, including (but certainly not limited to) those related to diversity and inclusion. We are anticipating intense collaboration with the committees for the rewrite. Outreach is also planned to engage individual members.

    As the ball is just getting rolling on the collaboration efforts, we appreciate everyone's thought-provoking comments, points, and opinions so far! To reiterate: everything from questions and positive comments, to things you'd like to see, to professionally-stated constructive criticism and respectfully-presented strong dissent and are all welcome on this thread. 

    ------------------------------
    Stephanie Slocum P.E., M.ASCE
    Founder
    Engineers Rising LLC
    www.engineersrising.com
    ------------------------------



  • 41.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 02:13 PM
    Edited by Chad Morrison 08-19-2019 03:28 PM
    VW and Boeing are good examples.  At this time, what recourse does an engineer have against an employer/client (essentially the same thing) who is pressuring them to produce results that reflect an outcome contrary to their ethics/values?  The engineer can only say "find another engineer to do this for you."  Here the code of ethics adopted by the engineer and the state has no means of enforcement.  The replacement engineer might be able to satisfy both the employer/client and the safety/environmental requirements without question.  But, what if he cannot?  In the case of VW the compromise was found during testing/inspection (albeit years later).  In the case of Boeing... the worst. 

    Everyday we read about lawyers fighting on behalf of their clients (even after they die, if you read last week's news).  They are bound by the money and the interests of their client, even when their personal values may differ.

    When disaster is the outcome, the public asks, why didn't the state/fed government prevent this?  The state relies on licensed professionals bound by a code.  Enforcement after disaster should not be the goal here.  Without acting as duly appointed guardians of the public and environment... engineers (who are often limited in their scope on any project) are responsible for upholding the standards of the profession. They need to look out for each other, reporting of infractions to the state or ASCE as a last result.  Professional courtesy within and outside the ranks should be a given, but how often do we recognize and praise it?

    Public perception is key to the outcome of the 737 Max problem.  It is key to how the jury decides any case involving engineering.  The code needs to be strong enough to identify our responsibilities as experts and open enough to not be thrown back in our face by a savvy lawyer as a "gotcha"

    I don't know why prestige seemed to follow architects when they split professionally with engineers.  The art and beauty is more valued by clients and the public over the cold mathematics and science asking "is it safe for me?"  I will defer to my toddler as an expert on this phenomenon.  As society starts to shift the focus to greener solutions, we have the opportunity to highlight our work and further define our purpose.  Can we cut down this forest and build a parking garage?  I don't know, but here is a team of environmental, geotechnical, structural, and transportation engineers who can help you answer that question.  They all belong to the same profession... and hopefully the same organization.  They all care about that forest.  And the client that wants a parking garage.



    ------------------------------
    Chad Morrison P.E., M.ASCE
    Professional Engineer
    Greenville RI
    ------------------------------



  • 42.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 03:10 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-19-2019 03:09 PM
    Hello

    Thank you for commenting.

    I think it is possible to enforce Ethic by Companies. Many states register professional design firms. It sounds quite simple to extend the Ethic Code for Engineers to Professional Design Firms. When this is done formally, the Compliance Officer ​has to promote Engineering Ethics to and by this he is supporting the single engineer. So for the protection of society we could utilize structures already in place.

    So the company who "looked" for a other engineer to sign of a "wished-for" result should be liable the same way as the engineer they "found".


    ------------------------------
    Tino Bretschneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Elmwood Park IL
    ------------------------------



  • 43.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-19-2019 05:31 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-19-2019 05:30 PM

    I completely agree with Dwayne Culp's post and want to highlight a couple of things I believe need to be at the forefront of the rewrite. 

    "As engineers, we have the ultimate responsibility to the public, which are not always our clients.  Our clients are often required to do things that cost extra because they are in the best interest of the public.  Some examples are pollution prevent, stormwater quality, flood prevention.

    As professional engineers, we have ethical responsibilities above and beyond those of our clients, and therefore cannot always hold our client's interest as paramount.

    When all things are in balance, we have to hold the public interests with respect to health and safety first, our clients interests second, and our interests last.  

    Engineers are about the only profession that has an ethical responsibility to those that are not the direct recipients of our services.  How many people know the name of the engineering company that designed the water systems in their neighborhood.  It is not until an engineer fails to look out for the safety of the public first, that people start knowing our names.. . . ."

    Respectfully, I propose that Dwayne's notes in their unedited entirety be the preamble to the initial working groups charge for ASCE's 21st Century Code of Ethics.  


    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 44.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-20-2019 12:57 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-20-2019 12:57 PM
    I wholeheartedly agreee with Dwayne, and am troubled by those who want to impose a fiduciary duty between engineers and clients.   I teach our macro ethics lecture to our seniors and stress the primacy of ASCE Canon I and duty to the public (both the current public and future publics).  To my mind, where there is a conflict between what the client wants and the public good, it is an engineers obligation to resign from the job if the the conflict cannot be resolved.

    While I do not assign the paper below to my students because of possible "trigger" issues, it is to my mind very important reading to assimilate and understand.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844979

    ------------------------------
    Charles Haas F.ASCE
    LD Betz Professor of Environ. Eng. & Department Head - Civil, Architectural and Environmental Eng.
    Drexel University
    Philadelphia PA
    ------------------------------



  • 45.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-21-2019 10:51 PM
    What a fascinating paper you posted @Charles Haas! Thank you for sharing that. I've never thought of those events from the engineering or technical perspective. I spent much of a plane ride contemplating this perspective and enjoyed the thought exercise. It solidified in my mind the difference between morality and engineering judgement calls.

    I've got a situation brewing on a current project where one contingent of engineers/architects want to add additional scope in an "abundance of caution" and another contingent of engineers are of the opinion a reduced scope is acceptable. My job is to balance their opinions with the project budget - not an easy place to be. This is why I caution against over simplifying any code of ethics and hierarchy. One post talked about the duty to society resulting in the addition of costs and to a project. And while I don't disagree that this is, at times, appropriate I do think there is a duty to the owner stakeholder to minimize such burdens. There is usually no magical money tree and when excessive costs are added it may likely kill the project (and the engineer right out of a job).

    The line between morality and duty seem to be clearly distinct.

    ------------------------------
    Jesse Kamm PhD, PMP, A.M.ASCE
    Senior Vice President of Construction Management
    ------------------------------



  • 46.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-22-2019 08:34 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-22-2019 08:34 AM
    Jesse,

    I agree with your comment about over simplification.

    If ASCE were to adopt a code of ethics that regularly put the engineers ethics in conflict with what the Owner/Client wants this could create a no win situation.  The firm would have to resign from the project and or the individual would have to leave the firm or you end up with an unhappy client that sues the engineer for non performance or simply will not retain the engineer in the future.

    Yes there are situations where you have to refuse the clients instructions but they cannot be the norm.


    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan S.E., M.ASCE
    Berkeley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 47.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-24-2019 07:06 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-24-2019 07:06 AM
    This conversation thread raises the issue of the engineer's choices about what is good enough, expressed in that old saw "fit for purpose," and the concern for the public's health and safety according to our codes of ethics. One engineer in this dialogue described himself caught between a group of designers on a job who wanted to add additional scope in an "abundance of caution" while another group are of the opinion that "a reduced scope is acceptable;"  he must "balance their opinions with the project budget." Therein is the conflict between practical engineering and concern for the public good.
     
    For instance, practical engineering says there must be factors of safety in every design, as an industry standard. In the example cited the group who are satisfied with a reduced scope are presumably satisfied with the normal standard of care including the applicable safety factor. The more conservative group would go beyond what is required by the normal standards.
     
    When a design fails the engineer's defense is that he  applied the industry standard in his design. In a defense against a claim of negligence the engineer (and her attorney) will turn to the classic definition of duty: That level of care and competence common to the profession in that area of practice. After all, our attorneys and professional liability insurers remind us that the law does not require perfection from us, nor even a level of care and competence above that normally provided by the profession. Our ethical codes, on the other hand, put no limit on our care for the public.  Fit for purpose is an unacceptable standard. So we practice according to the code while protecting ourselves with the law.
     
    Accordingly, when an engineer is charged with negligence it may become necessary to make the distinction between negligence and a breech of ethics. For the lay juror it may appear as a distinction without a difference. For the authors of our codes of ethics (and there are many codes) it would be well for them to recognize the practical conflict.
     
    Robert W. Foster, PE, PLS
    F.ASCE
     





  • 48.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-23-2019 09:28 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 08-23-2019 09:28 AM
    Of course the primary duty of an engineer is to protect the public good. That duty is generally fulfilled by complying with the law and established good engineering practices. Nothing about fiduciary duty would require an engineer to violate either. If a client claims that doing so is in its best interest, fiduciary duty would require the engineer to inform the client to the contrary and refuse to continue. If the engineers had done so in the two examples previously given (i.e., Volkswagon's diesel emissions and Boeing's 737 Max), the companies' best interests would have been better served, as opposed to the actual situation. That is even more so in the case of the Nazi engineers. 

    ------------------------------
    Sam Furuta P.E., M.ASCE
    Retired
    Sam L Furuta
    Cerritos CA
    ------------------------------



  • 49.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-20-2019 01:39 PM
    Edited by Phil Foss 06-08-2020 09:10 PM
    Hello

    Still I recommend to include "firms" (what might be e.g. registered professional design firms).​

    Reading today's press release of the Business Round Table: https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Business-Roundtable-Statement-on-the-Purpose-of-a-Corporation-with-Signatures.pdf


    iI would totally stay in line with current Industry thinking.




    ------------------------------
    Tino Bretschneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Elmwood Park IL
    ------------------------------



  • 50.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-20-2019 03:19 PM
    I believe the Stakeholder Model, which concept was proposed in the linked article, is excellent - it clearly depicts the critical topics in our profession's Code of Ethics.  One thing to keep in mind is that any code of ethics has as its main purpose to speak to conduct and character, which, bottom line, means individuals need to behave.  Interesting discussion overall here.


    ------------------------------
    Michael W. Hall, PE, M.ASCE
    Sr. Engineer
    Dolese Bros. Co.
    Oklahoma City, OK
    ------------------------------



  • 51.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-23-2019 09:29 AM
    I'd like to add to Michael Hall's bottom line.

    To attain ethical practice within a profession, an individualistic approach to good morals is not enough. The structures of the profession (practices, procedures, institutions) must be conducive to an individual's accepting moral responsibility and fulfilling moral obligations. To paraphrase a philosopher of professional ethics (DeGeorge 1986), we must have moral engineers if we are to have moral engineering. But that is only half the truth. We must also have professional procedures and practices that reinforce, rather than place obstacles in the way of, moral action.

    https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:5(1539)

    ------------------------------
    W. M. Kim Roddis P.E., F.ASCE
    The George Washington University
    Washington DC
    ------------------------------



  • 52.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 08-24-2019 09:36 PM

    Re: Code of Ethics: How to Transform Failure into Success: Forensic Management

    To: Brock Barry, Dwayne, Stephanie, Melanie Sattler, Chad, Charles Haas, Andrew Wells , Bevin, Stuart Walesh, Timothy Murphy, et al

    Great opportunity right now to engage the minds of the women and men who will be leading the civil engineering profession for the next 40+ years.

    Of course, I speak of the students in our ASCE Student Clubs.

    This valuable phase for planning the new Code of Ethics . . .First seek understanding of the results of the current Code of Ethics. . . will require increased hands-on skills in collaboration, cooperation, and communication across a wide spectrum of diverse experiences and interests. [1]

    Respectfully, I propose that you use the ASCE Student Sections/Chapters by geographic regions and . . . wait a minute. You are expert at this.

    Therefore, unbelievably, I will stop here and ask that a small task force of 3 to 5 agree to work with an ASCE staff point-person to . . . .

     No one of us is as smart as all of us.

     It's amazing what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit.

     

    Cheers,

    Bill

    [1][1] https://collaborate.asce.org/professionaltopics/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?GroupId=9265&MessageKey=cbe274a2-c0db-4e96-b406-67479b603232&CommunityKey=c95c7fc3-ed66-4208-8841-14604b5a3c32&tab=digestviewer&ReturnUrl=%2fprofessionaltopics%2fbrowse%2fallrecentposts



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 53.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 09-14-2019 08:23 AM
    Well, admittedly a bit surprised at the extended period of 'quiet-tude.' . . . is that even a word(?)

    Thought you might appreciate the opportunity to read, then consider the comparison between a School of Management's
    perspective of an approach to ethics, compared to a dated perspective from a civil engineer a few years ago who was 
    'triggered' by a visiting preacher while at a Southern Baptist Church in Missouri City, Texas.

    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 54.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-16-2019 01:35 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 10-16-2019 01:35 PM

    "Have faith that ASCE is in fact implementing a well-designed process for obtaining feedback, incorporating edits, and building member consensus.

    Regards
    Brock."

     

    While not mentioned specifically, I wanted to suggest that the group who will be the "Final Editors" of this revised edition reach out beyond the boundaries

    of civil engineering and in fact, engineering itself.

     Not for a moment am I suggesting I am expert in what Alvin Toffler could do, but I appreciated it.

     Brock, if for a moment we glance back at the makeup of the population the current 'CoE' served/serves, consider some of the narrow, short-term feedback to date: 

    some of the creeping protectionism, the desire to integrate with our global engineering organizations, the "Profit-First" mentality, and then stop to consider those in the 22 to 25 year age range who will be running this 'pony' out for the next 40 years . . . well, these raise some questions:

     How many on the ASCE Re-Write of the Code of Ethics Committee will be:

    1. Non-White.
    2. Women.
    3. Age 28 to 38
    4. Hispanic/Latino

     Well, I am certain I have left out a few categories others will add, but I trust all I have done is confirm what your committee had already decided or

    formed itself to do.

     Thank you for reading and considering my thoughts.

     Cheers,

     Bill Hayden Jr.

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 55.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-17-2019 06:21 PM
    I was at the ASCE conference in Miami this week, and had a chance to see some of the comments from the committee.  I think that they have a pretty good process in place to make the code of ethics less about following a set of rules, and more about setting a criteria for how to make an ethical decision in the framework of conflicting interests.  I think that they are on the correct track.

    It is hard (perhaps impossible) to internalize a set of rules that are more complicated than the 10 commandments.  The current ASCE ethical rule consist of over 50 interpretive statements, so it has been made difficult to internalize.

    I think that their hierarchical approach, which will state what should get top billing, will be easier to internalize and teach.  I have concern with expanding the hierarchy too far will make it difficult again, but I think that it is possible to not expand the hierarchy,  but give examples and still get to the end result of ethics that can be made part of our limbic brain system.  As an example, it is possible to hyper expand rules as simple as "Thou shalt not kill." to "Thou shall not kill" people, animals, trees, ambition, ideas, friendships, .... etc. I am hoping that that is not done with the rewrite.

    I dislike current rule 8, because of expansion.  Rule 8 which should basically be "Treat everyone with respect."  If we treat everyone with respect, we do not need to make a list of those that we are supposed "to equally" or "regardless of" treat with respect.

    I haven't heard back from them, but I volunteered to be on the committee.  Maybe I can be a non-committee leader member of the committee.  I think Kim's list of those not already represented on the committee could also be non-committee leader members of the committee.

    ------------------------------
    Dwayne Culp, Ph.D., Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
    Culp Engineering, LLC
    Rosenberg TX
    ------------------------------



  • 56.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-18-2019 11:17 AM
    Dwayne,

    I agree with your concern over enumerating specific cases potentially causing more issues than it solves.

    It reminded me of a time in preschool that our teacher told us, "do not open your mouths in the hallway on our way to gym class" instead of her usual "be quiet in the hallway." A couple of the boys loudly and dramatically hummed at the back of the line the whole way down the hallway. Sometimes, a more broad directive is more effective and enforceable.

    As you said, "treat everyone with respect" should cover it. When we start listing specific factors that shouldn't impact it, there will always be something missing from that list.

    ------------------------------
    Heidi Wallace EI, A.M.ASCE
    Engineer Intern
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 57.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-18-2019 12:11 PM
    Edited by Chad Morrison 10-18-2019 01:12 PM
    The trouble is general disrespect is subjective.  Something as simple as tone of voice could be misconstrued as an ethics violation.  It is not a moral code, but an ethics code.  Discrimination is a documentable offense.  The cases listed are obvious, but what sort of discrimination is OK?  Discrimination of based on incompetence or safety record might be a reason not to hire someone. Discrimination based on drug use is very controversial  at this time.  My state allows medical use of cannabis.  However, our shipbuilders have federal contracts subject to federal law.  Needless to say, it disrupts their hiring process.

    The code must be written and interpreted in a professional context, not personal.  Specific to the civil engineering profession.

    ------------------------------
    Chad Morrison P.E., M.ASCE
    Professional Engineer
    Greenville RI
    ------------------------------



  • 58.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-18-2019 02:15 PM
    Dwayne,

    You make a couple points here that actually concern me a great deal.  You are correct to point out that it is difficult to internalize any code of ethics and it is important that we can teach others to conduct themselves in an ethical manner.  However, the code is not (or should not be) intended to be a teaching tool or a method for internalizing ethics.  Instead it is a statement of ethics.  This may seem like a slight of hand, however the former is largely academic, focusing on abstract concepts, while the later is applicable to complex real-world situations. To that end, a framework for decision making as you put it cannot be all things to all people in all circumstances.

    From reading this thread and the linked article, it appears that the goal is to produce a code that is more easily understood and enforceable. My primary concern with the hierarchical approach is that it has the potential to create internal conflicts (between the "stakeholders") that are not easily resolved and therefore cannot accomplish these stated goals.

    Using the environment vs. the duty to our clients as an example, I think it should be clear to all engineers that sustainability is a high priority in our practice.  However, almost all of the work performed by our profession has detrimental impacts on the environment.  As a result, we find ourselves on a subjective scale as to what is sustainable enough with the only hard and fast rules being "accepted practice" (which really means the law).  This is a situation we find ourselves in with many of the current canons and without clear, precise, and broadly applicable metrics the hierarchy only has the appearance of being different in application.

    However, by putting numbers next to these abstract concepts the society is inviting individuals to leverage the higher order ethics for political purposes in ways that distort the original intent.  This is not good for ASCE or the profession. 

    I know that many feel the canons give too much freedom for interpretation, however that freedom is what allows us to act as informed adults.  While the hierarchy may be a useful teaching tool, ASCE has other types of documents for outlining insightful decision making processes and I think this effort should go that route.

    ------------------------------
    Andrew Wells A.M.ASCE
    Engineering Assistant III
    Juneau AK
    ------------------------------



  • 59.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 10-18-2019 02:59 PM
    You make many good points Andrew.  I hope the committee is still monitoring this conversation so that they consider your points.

    My post was to provide what I learned at the convention to a broader audience to further the conversation.  I think that your post brings up things that they may not be considering, so it furthers the conversation.   I agree strongly that no code of ethics should ever be capable of being politicized.

    ------------------------------
    Dwayne Culp, Ph.D., Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
    Culp Engineering, LLC
    Rosenberg TX
    ------------------------------



  • 60.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 11-29-2019 09:33 PM
      |   view attached
    • Question To Rewrite Committee:
    Ought the subject/central issue of the "FORUM" article below be the core issue of your work?

    Thank you for reading and considering my opinion.
    Bill
    <>=========================================<>
    F   O   R   U   M

    "CHAMPION NEEDED[1] An Associated Press report from Thursday, August 16, related the discovery of two more sets of human remains amid the wreckage of the interstate bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis. That raised the known death toll to 11. The report went on to say that navy divers were continuing their efforts. . .."

    ". . . . We have a very real "defining moment" here, an unfortunate accident, the analysis of which will teach us still more about such matters. It occurs to me that ethical principles were always intended to protect those least able to protect themselves. Of course, I may be wrong."

     -William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE This letter was originally published by ASCE in Civil Engineering, 77(10), 8.

    [1] Leadership Manage. Eng., 2008, 8(2): 47-48

     



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 61.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 12-16-2019 11:34 AM

    I M A G I N E!

     It's in our future.

     Our revised Code of Ethics was released and promoted some 5 to 7 years ago.

     Now, we patiently look back, reflect, and assess the results of this revision on the behaviors of those subject to the Code.

     "Past behaviour may be a fairly good predictor of future behaviour [1] in some cases, but before jumping to conclusions about just how predictive, you should take into account similarity of situations, the time period, how much the person may have changed, and how habitual the behaviour might be."

    What would we expect to observe, and learn about Civil Engineer's behaviors over that initial 5 to 7-year period?

     

    Q1. What behaviors and attitudes remain the same from the period prior to these revisions?

    Q2. What observable change might we expect to learn about, as well as experience?

    Q3. What contentious behaviors and attitudes remain?

     
    Cheers,

    Bill

    [1] Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/best-predictor-future-behaviour-past-except-joshua-wood/ downloaded 15DEC2019



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 62.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 12-29-2019 10:03 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 12-30-2019 11:38 AM
      |   view attached

    As the "Code of Ethics" re-write goes forward, I trust those entrusted in framing the doc recognize. . ."Out loud" . . .the global environs we are to participate within.

     The WFEO document "Declaration Global Engineering Education Standards and Capacity Building for Sustainable Development " is [1]such an "Environ."

    The one-page doc referenced above is just one part of the background referenced.

     Q. Given there is an "Assigned Group" to draft and submit the CoE rewrite:

    1. Can someone submit the process to be utilized to run the drafts through?
    2. What, who, when, and how will the process in '1.' above be documented and communicated?

    And of course,

     The very best of the New Year 2020 to one and all!

    Bill

     

     

    [1] https://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/declarations/UNESCO_IEA_WFEO_Declaration_Global_Engg_Education.pdf

      Downloaded 29DEC2019



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 63.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 12-30-2019 08:47 AM
    William
    Thank you for your message and continued interest in the ASCE Code of Ethics re-write process.  I understand you are requesting additional information about the process being used.  I'll attempt to provide additional details here.

    - July 2019, the Task Committee (TC) presented DRAFT Version 1.0 to the ASCE Board of Direction for discussion.  (Over 12 months of activity preceded this presentation to the Board.  I'm not including details regarding those 12 months of activity as I believe it was previously discussed.)
    - July 2019, the ASCE Board directed the TC to proceed with engaging with and requesting feedback on DRAFT Version 1.0 from representatives of all existing ASCE standing committees, regions, subsidiary committees, etc.
    - August 2019, Leaders of all ASCE standing committees, regions, subsidiary committees, etc. were contacted via email.  Follow-up emails and direct phone calls were made to leaders.  In addition, ASCE staff liaisons for all ASCE standing committees, regions, subsidiary committees, etc. were also prompted.  In those messages, representatives of each organization were invited to join in on a series of phone conferences as the TC began the process of preparing DRAFT Version 2.0.  The leaders of each organization identified members to participate in the process.
    - October - November 2019, the TC hosted six, 2-hour long conference calls with representatives (as identified above).  During those conference calls, specific sections of DRAFT Version 1.0 were reviewed and discussed.  All comments and suggestions were recorded.  In addition to using a phone-based system, a web-based interface was used to promote collaboration.
    - October- November 2019, in addition to the conference calls, comments and suggestions were received from representatives via an ASCE collaborate site and via direct email submission to TC members.  Again, all comments and suggestions were recorded.
    - November - December 2019, TC members convened for eight, 2-hour long conference calls to review each and every comment and suggestion received during the prior series of meetings.  In total, over 120 individual comments were reviewed, considered, and incorporated when appropriate.  A record of how each item was addressed was maintained.
    - December 2019, the TC completed DRAFT Version 2.0.
    - December 2019 (last week), ASCE posted DRAFT Version 2.0 to a public website to solicit feedback from all 150,000+ world-wide members of ASCE.  The link to access that website is active and ASCE is in the process of publicizing the website.  There should be an ASCE Collaborate thread posted in the near-term with the link (as well as other ASCE resources used to publicize the website).

    The website will remain open until late January.  At which point the TC will reconvene for a series of meetings to organize, review, consider, and incorporate (when appropriate) all feedback received on DRAFT Version 2.0.

    I hope this provides sufficient information regarding the process.
    Regards
    Brock E. Barry
    Chair, ASCE Task Committee on the Code of Ethics

    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    West Point NY
    ------------------------------



  • 64.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 12-30-2019 11:42 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 12-30-2019 11:42 AM
    Please include the contribution of the ASCE/SEI for this CoE rewrite,
    as provided in their "Global Practice Guide," dated 24APR2019,
    as provided elsewhere herein by Angela Fante.

    You may read/download that doc within Angela's post titled
    "Global Practice Guide."
    Cheers,
    Bill
    p.s. Isn't it just AMAZING what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets credit?

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 65.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 12-30-2019 01:10 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 12-30-2019 01:10 PM
    So reading this I think 1 and 2 are really the same. Protecting the public also means the environment. I had to turn in my client years ago for an EPA violation. While I did lose the client, it was not a bad thing. Contaminating ground water is never a good thing and I had to do it. I will say never call your client and tell them you are doing it, the legal bills just about killed me. The short of this is Protect Humans, they can do stupid things.

    ------------------------------
    George Miles P.E., M.ASCE
    President
    Alligator Engineering Inc
    Edgewater FL
    ------------------------------



  • 66.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 01-02-2020 07:53 AM
    Hello everyone, and thank you for your feedback and discussion to date!

    I wanted to share that you can review and comment directly on the DRAFT of the revised ASCE Ethics Code through January 20th. Check it out here: https://www.asce.org/draft-coe-member-feedback/



    ------------------------------
    Stephanie Slocum P.E., M.ASCE
    Founder
    Engineers Rising LLC
    www.engineersrising.com
    ------------------------------



  • 67.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 01-02-2020 09:58 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 01-02-2020 09:58 AM
    Thanks and appreciation to those who sorted through the feedback,

    as well as crafted a review and comment feedback tool to facilitate comments.

    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 68.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 02-13-2020 02:09 PM
    Did you share your opinion on the new ethics code draft yet? At the request of ASCE's Board of Direction, comments will remain open until February 28th. I urge you to make your voice heard if you haven't already! Here's the link (it hasn't changed from that previously posted): https://www.asce.org/draft-coe-member-feedback/

    ------------------------------
    Stephanie Slocum P.E., M.ASCE
    Founder
    Engineers Rising LLC
    www.engineersrising.com
    ------------------------------



  • 69.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 02-14-2020 12:36 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 02-14-2020 12:35 PM
    Dear Ms. Slocum -
    You may be interested in the attached paper I gave in 2017 on the subject of international ethics as applying to land surveying. The paper is equally appropriate in civil engineering. (I am a professional civil engineer and land surveyor.)
    Robert W/ Foster, PE, PLS

    Globalized Ethics

    Sustainable Real Estates Markets

    27 - 30 November, 2017  Lisbon Portugal

     

    by Robert W. Foster, PE, PLS

     

    Background

    In the 17th and 18th centuries international trade in land involved a European adventurer planting a flag on a piece of unexplored land on an undeveloped continent, and claiming it "for the king." It is more complicated today in this age of globalization, in which large amounts of capital are exchanged through a myriad of marketing systems, investment, currency exchange and political consideration. Real estate professionals of all stripes are involved including lawyers, realtors, appraisers, agents, bankers and surveyors.

     

    Laws and national policies on the land markets differ from country to country and require the careful research of the many professionals involved, a complicated but achievable process. What is not so easy is navigating the labyrinth of customs and ethical practices of the many cultures participating in international real estate mercantilism. The ethics of the professions, internationally, is a subject that has become of some considerable concern. Why that is so has been explained this way:

    Because real estate is integral to whole societies and economies, it shapes and influences the world we live in and represents a significant proportion of all global wealth. For this reason professionals have a duty to uphold the highest standards.

    Those are the words of the International Ethics Standards Coalition (IESC) who are in the process of developing an international ethics standard for real estate activity, arguing that

    Good business ethics are fundamental to professionalism and, like other global professions, real estate and related professions have an opportunity to develop transparency and increase trust.

    Proposal

    The IESC is made up of over 100 international organizations of real estate professionals like FIABCI, the international appraisers, RICS the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and other property-related professions. The standard with the objective to "support the creation, maintenance and use of high quality, international and principle-based ethics standards through a transparent and inclusive standard setting process,"  has been published by the Coalition and distributed.

     

    The FIG Code

    The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) will no doubt adopt the IESC standard which raises the question: would adoption of the IESC standard supplant the existing FIG Statement of Ethical Principles and Model Code of Professional Conduct?

    Would all the 100+ national surveying associations who are FIG members be required to adopt the standard individually? By the way, how is such a standard to be enforced? And how well will an international ethics standard be received in countries where graft and kick-backs for public contracts are considered normal business, and where graft and corruption are a government's life blood?

    FIG's Code will not be supplanted by the IESC code; the FIG code is specific to the practice of surveying whereas a code written for "real estate and related professions" must be very general in its instructions. For instance the FIG code states in its Ethical Principles: under the heading of Integrity: surveyors are to "maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity toward those with whom they come in to contact …" Under the heading of Independence, surveyors are to "diligently and faithfully execute their role according to the law …" The code continues in this vein with statements on Care and Competence, Duty and the Public interest.

    In its Model Code of Professional Conduct the FIG code specifies the conduct of surveyors generally, as employers, when dealing with clients, when providing professional services, as members of professional associations, as business practitioners and as resource managers.

    The Internal Rules of the Federation define a Member Association as being comprised of individuals … "who provide professional services in accordance with ethical standards." There is no reference in the FIG Statutes and Internal Rules to the Statement of Principles and Model Code of Professional Conduct (which appears in FIG Publication No.17). The Council and General Assembly must assume that candidates for membership in the Federation are aware of the Statement but there is no requirement in the application process that a member recognize and respect the FIG code in all its particulars. Instead the following advisory appears in the preamble to the Statement:

    The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) recognizes that, due to international differences of culture, language, and legal and social systems, the task of preparing a detailed code of professional conduct must rest with each member association, which also has the responsibility to implement and enforce such a code.

    The Statement goes on to recommend that surveyors and their associations "adopt the following ethical principles and model codes of professional conduct or, where appropriate, adapt them to local values and customs." In other words, the FIG code provides for a certain amount of situational ethics application, allowing for local values and customs.

    Enforcement

    Enforcement of a professional association's code of ethics is a more difficult issue. Many of the FIG codes are immeasurable. For instance, under the heading, When providing professional services… surveyors are told to "seek remuneration commensurate with the technical complexity, level of responsibility and liability for the services provided." Judging the fairness of a surveyor's fees on the basis of such requirements would involve subjective examination; there are no metrics to be applied in the judgment. It is not unusual for a surveyor and his client to dispute a fee on the basis of complexity, level of responsibility and liability assumed by the surveyor in furnishing the services; it is usually a matter of the surveyor's opinion versus the clients opinion. A charge of breach of ethics by a client against a surveyor in this situation would put a professional surveying association in a nearly impossible position. In fact, unlike a charge of negligence on the part of a surveyor, which requires objective judgment, judging a breach of ethics is almost always a subjective process making enforcement extremely difficult.

     

    Of all the ethical issues, the conflict of interest is perhaps the most perilous and the one most likely to be violated. What makes this ethical principle to of high risk for the professional is in the appearance of conflict. A professional may believe that he or she is not in a position of conflict, but may actually appear to be so. A conviction that one is free of conflict is not good enough if position or circumstances imply the possibility of a conflict.

     

    Conclusion

    Ethical codes and standards are a necessary component of any professional association The FIG code is appropriate in all respects and the proposed IESC code for land-related professionals will be a valuable addition to international land transactions. Ethical codes are, in fact central to the scope and operation of a profession's members. But codes and standards must be basically advisory rather than regulatory; enforcement may only be rarely called for and then only in response to the most egregious offense.    The IESC code, if adopted by professionals in countries where graft and corruption are rife, will serve at least as a reminder of how business is conducted in the more enlightened economies of the World.

    -end-

     

     

     

     



    ------------------------------
    Robert Foster P.E., L.S., M.ASCE
    Owner
    Hopkinton MA
    ------------------------------



  • 70.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 05-29-2020 05:26 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 05-29-2020 05:25 PM

    I just read a post from William Wallace, 27MAY2020, 12:18 p.m.

    One line, clearly and briefly reaffirmed the core purpose of an engineer’s professional Code of Ethics.

    "Clearly engineers, especially those working in the built environment, need to be skeptical about the information they use, since they are responsible for protecting public health, safety and welfare."

    Consider patiently reading Mr. Wallace's entire post, which provides an example of the proper application of what engineers hold to be the foundation of our professional ethics.

    However, what I gleaned from my last read of ASCE’s draft-revised COE, is it seems the clarity of Wallace's one-liner is being diluted to answer the question "What is our Code of Ethics?" with the answer, "It Depends."

    Stay Healthy!

    Cheers,
    Bill

    “proposing that attention should shift from the codes themselves as the sources of ethical behavior to the persons whose behavior is the focus of these codes.”

     

     “test hypotheses (1) that the perceived usefulness of ethics codes is positively related to the degree of familiarity with the code, and (2) that ethical climate as assessed by managers is positively related to the code's perceived usefulness. Both hypotheses are supported.”

                           -Benson, George C. S.: 1989, ‘Codes of Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 305–319.



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 71.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 06-01-2020 08:57 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-01-2020 08:56 AM
    What bothers me a lot has to do with ethics and morals but not on this level. I have seen recently reports about damage to peoples homes that an Engineer supplied a report that is obvious that he was paid to write based on a narrative that they gave him. There is no facts supporting the Engineers side and Ethically they lied for money. This is disappointing that they are out there and I find it to be a disgrace to our field. Nothing in the reports was supported by any studies or facts. Sad day when this is happening.

    ------------------------------
    George Miles P.E., M.ASCE
    President
    Alligator Engineering Inc
    Edgewater FL
    ------------------------------



  • 72.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 06-08-2020 11:29 AM
    Hello!

    I'm a long-time ASCE-supporter, but new member! Steve Starrett, Amy Lara and I co-wrote "Engineering Ethics: Real World Case Studies" (ASCE Press, 2017), which follows the soon-to-be-replaced COE. I'm wondering where/how are things regarding the new COE. I saw a version a couple of months ago and have a bunch of comments, but I think I missed the window. I'd be happy to share them if there's still time!

    Steve and I often present an engineering ethics talk at ASCE conferences, and always mention the COE. We'd love to get the latest and greatest. 

    Best,

    Carlos

    ------------------------------
    Carlos Bertha, Ph.D
    Professor of Philosophy
    United States Air Force Academy
    COL (Ret.), USAR
    ------------------------------



  • 73.  RE: Code of ethics reboot

    Posted 06-08-2020 01:57 PM
    Carlos
    I can confirm that we received your input on an earlier version of the DRAFT Code.  You are fortunate to work with Steve Starrett.  He is a great advocate for professional ethics in our profession.  Steve provided comments at multiple points along the way.

    You can find the latest information regarding the Code at this ASCE link:
    https://collaborate.asce.org/professionaltopics/viewdocument/asce-proposed-code-of-ethics-webina-1?CommunityKey=c95c7fc3-ed66-4208-8841-14604b5a3c32

    Regards
    Brock
    Chair, Task Committee on the Code of Ethics

    ------------------------------
    Brock Barry Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
    Professor of Engineering Education
    Salisbury Mills NY
    ------------------------------