The Fact Chronology of Case # 62-12

Fact Time Qualifier
1. Engineer X <is employed by> Consulting Firm Y. Pre-existing fact
2. Consulting Firm Y <is hired to provide services for> {extensive} Government Agencies. Pre-existing fact
3. Candidates & Rival Candidates <run for political office.> After the start of 2
4. Candidates & Rival Candidates <are competitors for the same political office.> Occurs concurrently with 3
5. Engineer X <gives a political contribution to> Candidates & Rival Candidates. [Questioned Fact 2] Occurs during 3
6. Republican Party & Democratic Party <are competitors for the same political office.> After the start of 2
7. Engineer X <gives a political contribution to> Republican Party & Democratic Party. [Questioned Fact 1] Occurs during 6

Actor and Object Types.

1.
Engineer X --> Principal Engineer
2.
Consulting Firm Y --> Engineering Firm
3.
Government Agencies --> Governmental Body
4.
Candidates --> Political Candidate
5.
Rival Candidates --> Political Candidate
6.
Republican Party --> Political Party
7.
Democratic Party --> Political Party

The Board's Analysis

Questioned Fact(s) 1: Fact 7
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer X
The Board's Conclusion: Unethical

The board cited the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
R1:4 Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer gives a political contribution [7] ^ ^ The political contribution is intended to secure work [6, Inference based on facts] ^
C19 Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer performs action related to the public's knowledge and appreciation of engineering [7] ^ ^ Engineer's action does not protect the engineering profession (collectively and individually) from misrepresentation and misunderstanding [6, Inference based on facts] ^

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

Case Citation Type How Cited Grouped with Q # Why Relevant? Why Distinguished or Analogous?
60-9-A Relevant, But Not Controlling Explicitly Discussed 60-9-B, 60-9-C 1, 2 ^ %A gift is given to possibly influence future engineering contracts % [1, 2, 6, 7] ^ ^ NA ^
60-9-B Relevant, But Not Controlling Explicitly Discussed 60-9-A, 60-9-C 1 ^ %A gift is given to possibly influence future engineering contracts % [1, 2, 6, 7] ^ ^ NA ^
60-9-C Relevant, But Not Controlling Explicitly Discussed 60-9-A, 60-9-B 1, 2 ^ %A gift is given to possibly influence future engineering contracts % [1, 2, 6, 7] ^ ^ NA ^
Questioned Fact(s) 2: Fact 5
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer X
The Board's Conclusion: Unethical

The board cited the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
R1:4 Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer gives a political contribution [5] ^ ^ The political contribution is intended to secure work [4, Inference based on facts] ^
C19 Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer performs action related to the public's knowledge and appreciation of engineering [5] ^ ^ Engineer's action does not protect the engineering profession (collectively and individually) from misrepresentation and misunderstanding [4, Inference based on facts] ^

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

Case Citation Type How Cited Grouped with Q # Why Relevant? Why Distinguished or Analogous?
60-9-A  Relevant, But Not Controlling Explicitly Discussed 60-9-B, 60-9-C 1, 2 ^ %A gift is given to possibly influence future engineering contracts% [1, 2, 4, 5] ^ ^ NA ^
60-9-B Relevant, But Not Controlling Explicitly Discussed 60-9-A, 60-9-C 1 ^ A gift is given to possibly influence future engineering contracts% [1, 2, 4, 5] ^ ^ NA ^
60-9-C Relevant, But Not Controlling Explicitly Discussed 60-9-A, 60-9-B 1, 2 ^ %A gift is given to possibly influence future engineering contracts% [1, 2, 4, 5] ^ ^ NA ^

[Main Page] [Index to Reference Documents]
[Index to All Examples] [Previous Example] [Next Example]