E101 Engineering Seminar

Ethics Case 1: Gilbane Gold1

This case was originally prepared by the National Institute for Engineering Ethics
of the National Society of Professional Engineers. It is a fictional but highly
plausible case, suggested by actual situations. Engineers will find it easy to
identify with the junior environmental engineer, David Jackson, who is caught
between his desire to be a good employee and his sense of obligation as an
engineer to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Although the primary ethical issue raised in the case is whistle blowing,
secondary ethical issues include the obligations of engineers with respect to
environmental issues, management problems having to do with honesty and trust
between business and its host community, the issue of the fairness of a
community towards local manufacturing plants, the problems raised for
individuals and groups by the necessity for action in the face of inconclusive
scientific evidence, and the relationship of law and morality.

The case takes place in the imaginary town of Gilbane. The sludge from the
Gilbane sewage plant has been used for many years as a fertilizer and is sold
under the name "Gilbane Gold." The revenue from the sale of Gilbane Gold
enables the city to supplement its tax revenues, saving a family of four
approximately $300/year in taxes. In order to protect this source of income, the
town placed severe restrictions on the discharge of heavy metals into the
sewage, so the sewage would be safe for use by farmers as fertilizer. The
restrictions are ten times more stringent than federal regulations.

Before implementing these regulations, Gilbane had aggressively marketed itself

as a city with a good business climate, offering tax abatements to industries that
chose to move there. After several high-tech firms moved to the area, the more
stringent regulations were enacted. Z CORP was one of the companies that
moved to Gilbane. Its Gilbane plant manufactures computer components, but the
plant's manufacturing process creates substantial quantities of toxic materials,
primarily heavy metals. Z CORP monitors its waste discharge monthly.

Two facts about the regulations affect the resolution of the case. First, plants in
Gilbane are responsible for supplying test data to the city. The data must be
signed by an engineer, who attests to its accuracy. The law governing effluents is
flawed, however, for it only regulates effluent discharge in terms of the amount of
toxic material for a given volume of discharge, not in terms of the total quantity of
contaminant. So a plant can always operate within Gilbane standards by simply
increasing the volume of discharge.

1
Taken from Taknosys Software Corporation webpage, Sept 21, 2001,
http://www.taknosys.com/ethics/cases/ect04.htm,.

1 5/30/02
E101 Engineering Seminar

Second, a newer and more sensitive (but also more expensive) test for heavy
metals has been developed since the city enacted its standards. The newer test
is not required by the city, and the city of Gilbane does not use it. Z CORP
employees have access to the test, and it shows that the plant has apparently
been slightly exceeding the allowable emissions on a number of occasions. This
produces a problem for Z CORP. If it discloses the results of the new test, the
city might take legal action against it. If it does not disclose the results, some of
its own employees may believe it is exhibiting bad faith with the city.

The plant's junior environmental engineer, David Jackson, is a new employee.

He has replaced a consultant who believes he was released because of his
warnings about the discharge of toxic materials. David is concerned about Z
CORP's heavy metals discharge, and his concern is further intensified when he
learns that Z CORP has signed a contract that will result in a five -fold increase in
the discharge of heavy metals. David finally decides to blow the whistle on the
plant's discharge levels by talking to the local TV newscaster.

Discussion
The primary ethical issue raised in the case is whistle blowing, obligations of
engineers with respect to environmental issues, management problems having to
do with honesty and trust between business and its host community, the issue of
the fairness of a community towards local manufacturing plants, the problems
raised for individuals and groups by the necessity for action in the face of
inconclusive scientific evidence, and the relationship of law and ethics. 2
Recommend a course of action for David to take.

2
taken from http://onlineethics.org/cases/texindex.html#goodrich, Sept 21, 2001.

2 5/30/02
E101 Engineering Seminar

Ethics Case 2: Political Contributions 3

Scenario
Engineer A is the principal in a small-sized consulting engineering firm.
Approximately 50% of the work performed by Engineer A's firm is performed for
the county in which the firm is located. The value of the work for the firm is
estimated to be approximately $150,000 per year. Engineer A is requested to
make a $5,000 political contribution, the maximum amount allowed by law, to
help pay the cost of the media campaign of the county chairman.
After subsequent thought, Engineer A makes a $2,000 contribution to the
campaign of the chairman, a person Engineer A has known for many years
through mutual public service activities as well as their activities on behalf of the
same political party. The county board chairman serves in a part-time capacity
and receives $9,000 per year for his services. Other members of the board
receive $8,000 per year for their services. As required under the laws of his state,
Engineer A reports the campaign contributions to the state board of elections,
and correctly certifies that the contributions do not exceed the limits set by the
law of the state.

These contributions and the contributions of other firms in the county are
reported by members of the local media who appear to suggest that Engineer A
and other firms have contributed to the campaign in anticipation of receiving work
from the county. Engineer A continues to perform work for the county after
making political contributions.

Question
Is it unethical fo r Engineer A to continue to perform work for the county after
making the $2,000 contribution to the campaign of the county board chairman?

References: NSPE Code of Ethics

Section II.3.a. "Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports,
statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information
in such reports, statements, or testimony."

Section II.5.b. "Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or
indirectly, any political contribution in an amount intended to influence the award
of a contract by the public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by
the public as having the effect or intent to influence the award of a contract. They
shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work.
They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to
secure work except to a bona fide employee or to bona fide established
commercial or marketing agencies retained by them."

3
Taken from the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, http://www.murdough.ttu.edu/EthicsModule/Ethics2.htm on Sept 21, 2001

3 5/30/02
E101 Engineering Seminar

Section III.1.f. "Engineers shall avoid any act tending to promote their own
interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession."

Discussion
For many years, the engineering profession has been grappling with the ethical
issues involved with political contributions by individuals to state and local
candidates. Political contributions were the subject of a keynote address by the
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) at a recent national meeting
and continue to be examined by a special task force charged with developing a
political contributions policy.
Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review (BER) has had occasion to examine
the question of political contributions. Case 62-12, the first case of its kind,
involved engineers who were officers or partners of various organizations such
as consulting firms, construction companies, or manufacturing companies who
made it a practice to contribute to campaign funds on behalf of those seeking
public office. The engineers also contributed as individuals to both major political
parties and in some cases to rival candidates for the same office. The Board
ruled that it was not unethical for an engineer to contribute to a political party or
candidate per se, but it is unethical to make contributions in the expectation of
being awarded contracts on the basis of favoritism.

The Board began its discussion by noting "Here we must deal with motivation:
what was in the mind of the contributor. It is beyond doubt that the engineer as a
responsible citizen has and should have the same opportunity as others to hold
political views and support the party or candidate of his choice for political office.
Such interest and activity is to be encouraged." But the Board also noted, "The
implication of the facts, however, is that the political contributions were made to
curry favor and place the engineer, and through him his firm, in a favorable
position to secure contracts through the influence of the candidates elected to a
public office which determines the award of such contracts."
In concluding its discussion, the Board further noted, "It is hardly possible to draw
a precise line in dollar amounts for the purpose of defining when a political
contribution becomes an improper incentive to secure contracts on the basis of
favoritism. As in all ethical applications, the only sound rule is that when conduct
may raise suspicion and doubt as to motive, it is the better part of wisdom to stay
well within the line.

Thereafter, in Case 73-6, Engineers A, B, and C made political contributions in

the sums of $150, $1,000, and $5,000 respectively, to a candidate for governor
of the state in which the firms they are associated with as principals are located.
The candidate they supported was victorious. Subsequently, the firms in which A,
B, and C are principals received several state contracts for engineering services
with total fees ranging from $75,000 to $4 million over a two-year period. With
two members dissenting, the Board found that in the absence of a showing of
improper intent, Engineers A, B, and C were not acting unethically at the time

4 5/30/02
E101 Engineering Seminar

they made their contributions, that Engineer A was not unethical for taking state
contracts under the circumstances since the contribution was in a nominal
amount, but that Engineers B and C were unethical for taking state contracts
under the circumstances since their contributions were each over a nominal
amount.

The dissenting position criticized the majority conclusion that Engineers B and C
were unethical, noting, "As long as the present system of financing political
campaigns is in effect, and in light of the conclusions reached in this case, any
engineer who relies on governmental or public works types of engagements for a
substantial portion of his or her practice would have to refrain from acting
meaningfully and constructively in the political process. With candidates
dependent on donations and contributions for financing campaigns, it is naive to
assume that any elected legislator is going to heed the advice or requests for
support of legislation or administration by persons who have not given him strong
support of his campaign efforts including the financing of such efforts."
The Board also had the opportunity to discuss the issue of engineer political
contributions to state and local candidates in other Cases (75-13 and 76-12).
However, Cases 62-12 and 73-6 provide the greatest insight into the ethical
dilemma faced by engineers who perform governmental or public works. We do
not wish to address the issue of contributions to political action committees that
has been addressed in Case 75-13 and determined to be entirely proper.
What we are faced with here is a fundamental clash between deeply rooted
ethical principles and a profession faced by the pressures of the business
environment. The language in the code is clear; this Board has interpreted the
language on more than two occasions and has been fairly consistent in its BER
interpretation. Nevertheless, we continue to hear the refrain from many within the
profession that "engineers are pressured into making contributions," and "it's a
matter of survival." We must respond, however, that fundamental ethical
principles stated in unequivocal terms cannot be bent or broken for economic
expediency or gain.

It has been 26 years since the Board decided Case 62-12 and 15 years since its
decision was affirmed in Case 73-6. The NSPE Code of Ethics language on the
question of political contributions (II.5.b.) has not been modified in any
substantive manner since that time. While we recognize the difficulties
encountered by many engineers who seek to perform public work and the
pressures involved, we can find no justification for modifying our long-held view,
as enunciated in Case 62-12. and restated in Case 73-6, that direct contributions
to candidates for political office in a nominal amount are permissible under the
Code but that political contributions in excess of a nominal amount are violative
of the Code.

Under the facts of this case, the requested political contribution of $5,000 was
not a nominal contribution for the office of chairman of the county board and
therefore was in violation of the Code of Ethics. Nominal political contributions

5 5/30/02
E101 Engineering Seminar

should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending upon the nature of the

political office involved, the size of the jurisdiction that the public official serves,
and other appropriate considerations based on the unique nature of the office.
But with most provisions of the Code, the greatest responsibility falls upon the
shoulders of individual engineers who must make a decision based upon their
own consciences as to what is appropriate. In this particular case it is our
judgment that a political contribution of $2,000 represents the upper limit of a
nominal contribution and therefore is not in violation of the Code.

Conclusion
It would not be unethical for Engineer A to perform work for the county after
making a nominal political contribution of $2,000 to the reelection campaign of
the county board chairman. 4

4
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.

6 5/30/02
E101 Engineering Seminar

Ethics Case 3: The Backwards Math5

"Jay's boss is an acknowledged expert in the field of catalysis. Jay is the leader
of a group that has been charged with developing a new catalyst system, and the
search has narrowed to two possibilities, Catalyst 'A' and Catalyst 'B'.
"The boss is certain that the best choice is 'A', but he directs that tests be run on
both, 'just for the record.' Owing to inexperienced help, the tests take longer than
expected and the results show that 'B' is the preferred material. The engineers
question the validity of the tests, but because of the project's timetable, there is
no time to repeat the series. The boss, therefore, directs Jay to work the math
backwards and come up with phony data to substantiate the choice of Catalyst
'A', a choice that all of the engineers in the group, including Jay, agree with. Jay
writes the report."

Consider the following with regard to the case of The Backwards Math:
1. What would you have done had you been Jay? Would you have written
the report?
2. If you had refused to write the report, how could you have justified this
refusal since you, along with all of the others on the team, felt that the test
data was invalid and there was not time to duplicate the test? Is it not
likely that experience is a better guide than one set of questionable test
data? If yes, does this impact on the ethical nature of the dilemma?
3. Would it have been a good idea to write the report and also write a memo
saying that you were being directed to do something that was unethical? If
you did this, would it be done just to cover you if you are found out? Would
that make what you did any more ethical than it would have been without
the memo?
4. How about the alternative of writing the report, but not signing it? Would
this be a satisfactory solution to your ethical dilemma?
5. Is this a case in which you would become an "internal" whistleblower by
going over your boss' head and reporting that you had been asked to write
a false report?

If none of the above options seem to be a satisfactory action, go back to

Question 1 and think again. What would you have done?

5
Taken from the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, http://www.murdough.ttu.edu/EthicsModule/Ethics2.htm on Sept 21, 2001.

7 5/30/02