| Fact | Time Qualifier |
|---|---|
| 1. Engineer A <reviews and analyzes> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power. | Pre-existing fact |
| 2. Engineer B <reviews and analyzes> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power. | Pre-existing fact |
| 3. The State Legislature <calls a hearing regarding> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power. | Pre-existing fact |
| 4. Engineer A <is retained by> the State Power Commission <as a technical consultant for a legal or arbitration proceeding.> | After the start of 3 |
| 5. Engineer B <is retained by> a Private Power Company <as a technical consultant for a legal or arbitration proceeding.> | After the start of 3 |
| 6. Engineer A <provides expert testimony for> the State Power Commission <regarding> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power. | After the start of 4, After the conclusion of 1 |
| 7. Engineer B <provides expert testimony for> a Private Power Company <regarding> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power. | After the start of 4, After the conclusion of 2 |
| 8. Engineer A <proposes the solution> Series of Low Dams. | Occurs during 6 |
| 9. Engineer B <proposes the solution> One High Dam. | Occurs during 7 |
| 10. Engineer A <criticizes> ((Engineer B <reviews and analyzes> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power) & (Engineer B <proposes the solution> One High Dam)) <to> Court. [Questioned Fact 1] | Occurs during 6 |
| 11. Engineer B <criticizes> ((Engineer A <reviews and analyzes> Water Supply, Flood Control, & Production of Electric Power) & (Engineer A <proposes the solution> Series of Low Dams)) <to> Court. [Questioned Fact 2] | Occurs during 7 |
| Questioned Fact(s) 1: | Fact 10 |
| Questioned Actor or Actors: | Engineer A |
| The Board's Conclusion: | Ethical |
| Code | Code Status | How Cited | Grouped With | Over rides | Why Relevant? | Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C5. | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | C7. | None | ^ Engineer serves as a witness before a court, commission
or other tribunal [6]
Engineer expresses an opinion [10] ^ |
^ Engineer's opinion is based on adequate knowledge [1]
Engineer's opinion is based on honest conviction [1, Inference based on facts] %Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| C7. | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | C5. | None | ^ Engineer publicly expresses an opinion on an engineering subject [10] ^ | ^ Engineer has adequate knowledge of the facts [1]
%Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| R6:10 | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer advocates the enactment of a community law, rule, or regulation [8, 10] ^ | ^ Engineer believes the law, rule, or regulation is in the
public interest [1, Inference based on facts]
%Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| C24 | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer publicly criticizes another engineer's work [6, 10] ^ | ^ Engineer exercises due restraint in criticizing the engineer
[Hypo: "... provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional
deportment."]
Engineer does not use the engineering society or engineering press as the forum for criticism [6, 10] %Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| Questioned Fact(s) 2: | Fact 11 |
| Questioned Actor or Actors: | Engineer B |
| The Board's Conclusion: | Ethical |
| Code | Code Status | How Cited | Grouped With | Over rides | Why Relevant? | Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C5. | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | C7. | None | ^ Engineer serves as a witness before a court, commission
or other tribunal [7]
Engineer expresses an opinion [11] ^ |
^ Engineer's opinion is based on adequate knowledge [2]
Engineer's opinion is based on honest conviction [2, Inference based on facts] %Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| C7 | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | C5. | None | ^ Engineer publicly expresses an opinion on an engineering subject [11] ^ | ^ Engineer has adequate knowledge of the facts [2]
%Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| R6:10 | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer advocates the enactment of a community law, rule, or regulation [9, 11] ^ | ^ Engineer believes the law, rule, or regulation is in the
public interest [2, Inference based on facts]
%Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |
| C24 | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer publicly criticizes another engineer's work [7, 11] ^ | ^ Engineer exercises due restraint in criticizing the engineer
[Hypo: "... provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional
deportment."]
Engineer does not use the engineering society or engineering press as the forum for criticism [7, 11] %Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ |