Professional and Career Topics

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.

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!!!

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!!!

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

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!!!

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 

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

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!!!

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 

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

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!!!

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 

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

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!!!

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.

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 

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

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!!!

2^nd 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.

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.

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 

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

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!!!

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.

2^nd 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.

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.

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 

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

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!!!

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.

2^nd 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.

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.

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 

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

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!!!

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.

2^nd 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.

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.

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 

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

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!!!

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.

2^nd 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.

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.

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 

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

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!!!

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.

2^nd 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.

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.

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 

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

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!!!

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.