Code Citations: [C1] [C2] [C3] [R1:3] [R2:5]
Code C1 is directed primarily to the duty of the professional engineer to give those within the profession the benefit of his knowledge and experience in order that the profession, as a whole, may advance its services in the public interest. Code C3 and Code R1:3 enunciate the individual engineer's responsibility for public service.
In the circumstances of this case Code C1, Code C3, and Code R1:3 are not applicable.
The purpose of the exhibit is, in effect, an advertisement and must, accordingly be governed by the Canons and Rules applicable to professional advertising. This Board has previously stated some guiding principles and examples to determine whether advertising permitted by Code C2 and Code R2:5 is self-laudatory and circumspect (See Cases 59-1 and 60-1). Assuming that the exhibit here in question does not offend those restrictions and guidelines, the sole question for decision is whether an exhibit at an association of school officials and school board members is a media which is "necessary to reach directly an interested and potential client...."
In a strict sense, no media of communication is "necessary," and certainly engineers can and do thrive without resort to particular media of communication of the availability of their services. We would read the language more in the sense of the appropriateness of the media. School officials and school board members have an unquestioned need for information on the diverse engineering talents which are employed in the most efficient design and construction of schools. The presentation of such information to school officials is, therefore, appropriate and within the permissible limits of the Canons and Rules, provided, of course, that the operation and substance of the exhibit or display is not self-laudatory, and is dignified and circumspect in tone and content.
Board of Ethical Review
L. R. DURKEE, P. E., PHIL. T. ELLIOTT, P. E., MARVIN C. NICHOLS, P. E., EZRA K. NICHOLSON, P. E., PIERCE G. ELLIS, P. E., Chairman
Note: Member Nichols concurs in the majority opinion as being consistent with the Canons and Rules under the facts as stated. However, he does not favor such exhibits by engineers as they tend to discredit the dignity of the profession.
Dissenting Opinion.
The majority opinion "assumes" that the exhibit does not offend the restrictions and guidelines set forth in Canon C2, Rule R2:5 and earlier statements of this Board. From the facts given above it is obvious that a highly commercialized medium is to be used. It is doubtful that visual and oral aids employed in the exhibits could be maintained "circumspect, etc.," thus would tend to discredit the dignity of the profession.
Since other effective media and contacts are available, it seems in appropriate to either condone or encourage the use of exhibit booths.
Engineers in private practice should refrain from presenting exhibits at a convention of school officials as they tend to discredit the dignity of the profession.
A. C. KIRKWOOD, P. E.
Note: Member W. S. Nelson did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this opinion.
[Disclaimer]