Code Citations: [II.3.b] [III.1.b] [III.2.b]
Case Citations: [63-4] [63-6] [88-7]
In a very early case, BER Case 63-4 involved a confidential questionnaire designed to obtain the opinion of engineers as to reputation of certain engineering firms, the Board articulated its view of this concept by interpreting the Canon of Ethics 5 which, at that time was limited only to the role of the engineer when serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal and Canon of Ethics 7 which was then restricted to expressing an opinion publicly. Said the Board, this provision "convey(s) the idea that an engineer should express opinions only on the basis of facts, honest belief and adequate knowledge. While (the provisions) are limited to the engineer serving as a witness or expressing an opinion publicly, the general principle should apply to all expressions of opinion. This is true even when the opinion to be given is treated as confidential."
Later, in BER Case 63-6, involving conflicting engineering opinions during a public hearing on pending legislation relating to water supply, flood control and electric power, the Board noted that some aspects of an engineering problem will admit to only one conclusion, but cautioned that it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit only to one correct answer. The Board said that particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-powered complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles. Large public projects are notably in this category and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnosis, but also determinations of public policy. Citing as an example, the Board indicated that engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be build at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be incorrect.
In BER Case 63-6, the Board also offered the view that there may be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts. Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their understanding of the application of those facts. The Board also recognized that frequently engineers must base their opinions on estimates of indeterminate facts, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment. Importantly, the Board noted that the applicable provisions in the Code of Ethics refer to the expression of "opinion" confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
Finally, in the fairly recent BER Case 88-7 involving an engineer who agreed to perform a bridge safety inspection for a newspaper which consisted of a one-day visual observation, the Board noted that in situations where an engineer is being asked to provide technical expertise to the public discussion, the engineer should offer objective, truthful and dispassionate professional advice that is pertinent and relevant to the points at issue. The Board noted that the engineer should only render a professional opinion publicly, when it is (1) based upon adequate knowledge of the facts and circumstances involved, and (2) the engineer clearly possessed the expertise to render such an opinion. The Board concluded that under the circumstances, it was not unethical for the engineer to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner stated but that the engineer had an obligation to require the newspaper to state in the article that the engineer had been retained for a fee by the newspaper to provide a professional opinion concerning the safety of the bridge.
While none of the cases herein discussed are entirely dispositive of the matter presently before the Board, each of the cases is helptul to the Board in resolving the matter. Additionally, in interpreting Code III.1.b and Code III.2.b., it is clear that the Board has over the years placed a great degree of significance on the ethical obligation of engineers to render professional opinions based upon a sufficient degree of understanding and candor relating to the matters involved and that where there may be circumstances which may impact upon this ethical obligation, the engineer has an obligation to fully disclose the nature of those circumstances.
Turning to the case at hand, it would appear that before Engineer A could ethically prepare a report containing the engineer's opinion on a building rehabilitation which was not performed under the engineer's direction or control, in order to determine whether the work was performed in a manner which is consistent with the public health and safety, it would appear that the engineer would need to (1) review all relevant information, reports, plans and drawings on the condition of the building prior to the rehabilitation; (2) review all documents used as part of the actual rehabilitation; (3) review all documents prepared following the rehabilitation and (4) perform a sufficient investigation of the facility to verify whether the work was performed as indicated. After caretul review and analysis of the information, if a reasonable basis exists to make a conclusion, the engineer may issue a report with conclusions addressing the issues raised by the supervisor. If a sufficient basis upon which to draw conclusions does not exist, the engineer may not ethically issue a report with conclusions, but may issue a qualified report without conclusions, noting all deficiencies in the information, plans, drawings, etc. and other documents provided to him.
Under circumstances such as here, where none of the information requested by Engineer A was forthcoming and funds were unavailable, we do not believe Engineer A could ethically issue a report of the type requested.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW John F. X. Browne, P.E. William A. Cox, Jr., P.E. Herbert G. Koogle, P.E.-L.S. William W. Middleton, P.E. William F. Rauch, Jr., P.E. Otto A. Tennant, P.E. Robert L. Nichols, P.E., Chairman
*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 betore or atter the text of the
case.
[Disclaimer]