Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-02-2018 12:05 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 03-02-2018 12:04 PM
    ​​ASCE expects its members to adhere to the "ASCE Code of Ethics." Our ASCE "Committee of Ethical Practice (CEP)" in thinking about the future. CEP wants to be ready to apply the "Code of Ethics" to new and upcoming "Real Life Ethical Challenges." For example, what are the Ethical Challenges Engineers will face with Autonomous Vehicles or Designing Sustainable Infrastructure. We need your help!

    What are the future initiatives that will raise new Ethical Challenges? We welcome your thoughts!

    ------------------------------
    Michael Avery P.E., M.ASCE
    Associate Division Administrator
    FHWA
    San Juan
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-03-2018 04:06 PM
    BIM and design-build projects expect design teams, contractors, and owners to share responsibility and liability.  Contracts often require delegated design.  Delegated design is not addressed in the current code of ethics.  What is expected of a delegated designer?  Where does the scope of responsibility for the engineer of record end and the delegated designer's begin?  Where do they overlap?

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



  • 3.  RE: Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-04-2018 02:36 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 03-04-2018 02:36 PM
    One of the difficult areas is that of "Whistleblowing", especially when someone or firm alters your Engineering report.  This places you as P.E./S.E. in an awkward position.  In such cases, you are obligated to do something or be in a position to possibly lose your license when incorrect information is disseminated with your name as the author of an altered report is shown on the report. Unfortunately, this has happened to me.

    ------------------------------
    Max Porter Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, F.SEI
    UNIV PROFESSOR EMIRITUS
    Ames IA
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-05-2018 11:04 AM
    Someone altering your work product is absolutely a time when you must blow a whistle.  If they are competent engineers, then they should substitute their name and/or PE stamp for yours.  If not possible, you have to decide if you agree with changes or throw it all in the trash.

    ------------------------------
    Stuart Moring P.E., F.ASCE
    Dir Of Pub Wrks (retired)
    Roswell GA
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-05-2018 10:09 PM
    Stuart, Thanks for your comments. In my case, I eventually had to go through the Adjutant General's Office since NSF funds were used. However, the person altering the engineering report was not an engineer.

    ------------------------------
    Max Porter Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, F.SEI
    UNIV PROFESSOR EMIRITUS
    Ames IA
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-06-2018 04:33 PM
    ​I've actually run into this issue three times in my career, and in none of the instances were the violations reported. I've always debated if I should have reported the violations to the state board of licensure. I'll briefly describe the instances of violations below to solicit feedback and foster discussion on how licensed professions should respond in these situations.

    In the first case a state agency initiated failure-to-comply proceedings against a client, and the violation was associated with an earlier emergency permit. I, as the engineer-of-record, and surveyor-of-record stamped plans of the existing conditions as part of an alternatives analysis to resolve the associated permitting issues. From an engineering perspective there were two related technical solutions that would resolve the design problem associated with the need for an emergency permit, while state agency staff wanted the privately held land turned over to the state so that an "environmental" solution, which in the opinion of all of the consulting engineers would have exacerbated the underlying technical problems, of the state's design could be implemented. The alternatives analysis and plans were submitted to the agency. Between the submission of the documents and the delivery of the documents to the state commissioners the plans were altered and the signatures and stamps removed. The commissioners received the altered documents in a manner suggesting that we, the professionals-of-record, had submitted them. The attorney for the client filed or noted a complaint to the commissioners that the documents they received were not as submitted. The response from the state agency staff apparently was that as state employees they were not required to have a license (none of the staff that may have been involved in the alteration were engineers), and, moreover, staff did not believe the information submitted. I left the company that was under contract to perform the work shortly after this incident for unrelated reasons and do not know if or how these issues of the project were resolved. I never reported the violation to the state. In any case, this appears to be a rather bold violation of licensure.

    The second case was an alteration of a signed document where the alteration was internal to a single consulting company. I had prepared a full scope and fees to address a complex water problem for which I was the only person in the company at that time who was qualified to address the issue. I had signed the document and sent it to company admin to deliver it to the client. The scope and fees were intercepted by a vice president in the company (here, someone of financial and legal charge within the organization), and the scope and fees were altered in a way to divert all financial benefit away from the part of the organization in which I operated to the part of the organization in which the VP operated. Most of my time on the project was removed and given to a junior staff member with no technical experience in the area of the project. My signature was left on the document and submitted to the client. Here, the VP was using my name, license, and reputation with the client to get work for the company, while disallowing me to work on the project. At the same time my signature (and my license) was associated with the contract. While the VP had the legal authority to change the contract I believe my name and signature should have been removed from the contract since the document implied that I approved the fees and scope presented. In the state in which the contract would be executed the engineer's act indicates, I believe, that scopes and estimates signed by an engineer are activities covered by the act. The act doesn't specify if scope and fees are to be part of contract documents and/or typical engineer's estimates, at least as I understand the act. When confronted the VP stated flatly that only stamped plans fall under the engineer's act, which is clearly not true. I offered to send the issue to the state and let state decide, a suggestion that was promptly declined. I ultimately left the company over frequent similar behavior, although the VP never used my signature again, at least to my knowledge, on any documents without my approval.

    The third instance was also within a single company. I was preparing a technical appendix to accompany a combined EIS/EIR document. The results of the analysis proved very favorable to the client in that they showed little or no impact under the requirements set forth for such documents. The client, however, wanted to reduce the design requirements implied by the technical appendix and asked the project manger, who is an environmental planner and not an engineer, if there was a way to reduce a calculated value. After discussing the analysis approach with me, including engineering judgement and factors of safety, the PM decided to change the design values at the client's request despite the engineering analysis not supporting the change. The document was submitted for agency review with my signature and license number despite my not approving the client-requested change. When confronted about the change the PM stated that it was "her project," and that only stamped plans fell under the engineer's act. This is plainly not true. I reported the violation to the company's QA/QC manager who had a rather loud discussion with the PM. I was removed from the project, but stayed with the company for several years more without seeing the issue again. The violation was never reported to the state.

    In my mind the first and third instances are clearly ethical violations, while the second is in a greyer area. As noted above, none of these violations were ever reported the respective state's board of engineers. I have always felt that the first case should have been reported since the overzealous state employee could cause catastrophic design flaws associated with their actions, while in the second two instances there was sufficient time and activities that could have alleviated improper designs.

    My questions is as follows: were the actions taken to address these violations correct, and if not what should have been done differently?

    ------------------------------
    David Jaffe Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, M.ASCE
    Psomas
    Santa Ana CA
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Real Life Ethical Challenges

    Posted 03-07-2018 10:40 AM
    I think you handled the 3 cases correctly.  The first step is to respond with professional courtesy (even if you are dealing with non PEs).  A face-to-face discussion.  There was no egregious safety (or environmental) hazard resulting from any of the cases that would warrant a call to the board. The first case deals with the government bureaucracy and unfortunately the board may be reluctant to get involved and it will make working with officials in the future even more difficult for you.  It was best for your career to depart from the project.  Ultimately, the agency and company bear the responsibility for the outcome and your stamped documents are now invalid.  For the other 2 cases, they were internal policy issues that did not put the public at risk.  You stopped the shenanigans and reporting it to the state would not have resulted in nothing but a slap on the wrist and a whistleblowing target on your back.  It's very unfortunate, but like many things in life we have to pick our battles.  You were not in a power position at the time, but hopefully you are now.  Your reputation as an ethical engineer has not been comprised and you have avoided being marked as "not a team player."

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