COMMENTS BY ONE ENGINEER CONCERNING ANOTHER
FACTS:
Engineer
A practicing in State X requires the services of a structural engineer in State
Y. Engineer A contacts Engineer B, who
is the secretary of the State Y Society of Professional Engineers, to request
the name of an appropriate engineer in State Y to perform the required
structural engineering work. Engineer B
suggests
Engineer
C , who Engineer A then decides to retain.
Not satisfied with the services provided by Engineer C, including
Engineer C’s lack of regular communication with Engineer A, Engineer A later
contacts Engineer B and tells Engineer B of his general dissatisfaction with
Engineer C, but does not first communicate this displeasure to Engineer C. Engineer A also remarks to Engineer B that
he is interested in retaining the services of another structural engineer for
the project. Soon thereafter, Engineer C contacts Engineer A and expresses
his strong displeasure toward Engineer A for the comments he made to Engineer
B.
QUESTIONS:
Question
1: Did Engineer A act ethically under
the circumstances?
Question
2: Did Engineer B act ethically under
the circumstances?
Question
3: Did Engineer C act ethically under
the circumstances?
DISCUSSION:
As
a general matter, the NSPE Code of Ethics places the obligation on all
engineers to respect the reputation of all other engineers in their
professional endeavors. Engineers
should be honest and direct in their communications with their colleagues in
all professional affairs. Frequently,
individual engineers have both a professional and a business relationship with
their professional colleagues which requires the use of appropriate judgment
and discretion (see NSPE Code Section III.7.).
The
Board of Ethical Review has not had any occasion to address any cases of the
type specifically described in the facts presented in this matter. BER Case 84-1 addressed the issue of public
criticism by one engineer of another, but the facts were quite different in
that case. As the Board understands the
facts, Engineer A required the services of a structural engineer in another
jurisdiction and sought the advice of a colleague in that jurisdiction,
Engineer B. This is entirely appropriate
and certainly not inconsistent with the Code.
It would appear that the only questionable action on the part of
Engineer A was that when confronted with the less than satisfactory
professional performance of Engineer C, Engineer A made note of this fact to
Engineer B. While Engineer A’s
communication with Engineer B may be an appropriate method of providing
feedback, Engineer A should have also directed his comments about Engineer C to
Engineer C. If Engineer A had a
difficult time getting into contact with Engineer C, he could have explored
other avenues of direct contact. It may
be that due to his frustration with the inability to receive a response from
Engineer C, Engineer A intentionally made his views known to Engineer B in
order to “put the heat” on Engineer C.
Turning
to the second question, we do not believe Engineer B engaged in any
inappropriate conduct. First, based
upon the facts, we assume that Engineer B referred Engineer A to Engineer C in
good faith and did not have any knowledge of any history on the part of
Engineer C of dilatory conduct. Second,
based upon the facts, we do not believe Engineer B’s disclosure to Engineer C
of Engineer A’s displeasure was a breach of Engineer A’s confidences. In fact, as we have already noted, there
appears to be some indication that Engineer A intended for Engineer B to make
Engineer A’s displeasure known to Engineer C.
While
the facts do not provide sufficient details, we believe that Engineer C had a
professional responsibility to communicate more directly with Engineer A about
the status of the project. However, we
do not believe Engineer C’s actions were in violation of the Code of Ethics.
Finally,
while it appears that Engineer C would be well advised to improve his practice,
the facts of the case do not demonstrate that Engineer C was unethical.
CONCLUSIONS:
Question
1: Engineer A acted ethically in
c÷icaticating with Engineer B, but acted unethically by not communicating with
Engineer C.
Question
2: Engineer B did act ethically
under the circumstances.
Question
3: Engineer C did act ethically
under the circumstances.
BOARD
OF ETHICAL REVIEW
James G. Fuller, P.E.
William
W. Middleton, P.E.
Robert
L. Nichols, P.E.
William
E. Norris, P.E.
Paul
E. Pritzker, P.E.
Jimmy
H. Smith, P.E.
C.
Allen Wortley, P.E. (Observer)
Donald
L. Hiatte, P.E., Chairman
*
Note -- In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations
vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence
conformance of individuals to the Code.
The Code deals with professional services, which services must be
performed by real persons. Real persons
in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the
Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its
provisions. This applies to all
pertinent sections of the Code.