Code Citations: [11(b)] [2(b)] [2]
Case Citations: [75-13]
The Promotion Committee approaches Local Engineer Firm X, along with similar contacts with bankers, realtors, insurance companies, and other local businesses, to solicit funds for the public education program in support of the bond issue. Local Engineering Firm X contributes funds to the public education program. Later, Local Engineering Firm X submits an engineering proposal to Town A that is related to the bond issue.
The more discussable question is whether an engineer undertaking an active support role could be held to have paid "indirectly" a "consideration" in order to secure work within the intent of Code 11(b). It could be argued by critics of the bond issue that the motivation of supporting engineers is personal or selfish in that they may stand to gain from the approval of the public works projects. And that may indeed be true to some degree. We considered a related question in Case 75-13, there involving the question of contributions to a political action committee without identification of the amount contributed to candidates for public office by particular names. The board concluded, with one dissenting vote, that it would be permissible for engineers to contribute unlimited amounts to the PAC under the "indirect" test of Code 11(b), noting that "There is perhaps no completely acceptable answer to the problem; engineers have a right to participate in the political process within the confines of applicable laws, and they have a duty under the Code of Ethics to refrain from that activity under circumstances in which they may be suspect of improper motivation."
In the case before us the "motivation" may be a mixed one; which is often the case in many of the day-today decisions which must be made by those in professional practice. But in the circumstances of this case, even if there is some degree of self-interest motivation, we believe it is sufficiently remote and removed from undue influence to eliminate any substantial concern that the essence of Code 11(b) is offended.
We are not advised in the facts of the amounts proposed to be contributed to the promotion fund by various engineering firms, or the relative relation of those amounts to the total fund. We can conceive of a situation in which one or a few firms might contribute so substantially to the total fund that suspicion could be aroused that the predominant motivation was to "buy in" for future commissions. In the absence of any evidence of that promotional problem in this case, however, we would only enter a cautionary note that the financial support of the engineering firms should be generally in line with those of other elements of the community interested in furthering the public works program.
*Note-This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
Board of Ethical Review
William J. Deevy, P.E. Robert R. Evans, P.E. James G. Johnstone, P.E.
Robert H. Perrine, P.E. Donald C. Peters, P.E. James F. Shivler, Jr., P.E.
L.W. Sprandel, P.E., chairman
[Disclaimer]