PROFESSIONAL

CONDUCT & ETHICS

PANEL DISCUSSION
PRESENTED BY: BHB & HZ
 ETHICS
DISCUSSION AGENDA

PANELISTS SCENARIOS ETHICS CODE QUESTIONS

BOARD MEMBER OF
TEXAS MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, WORKS PART
TIME FOR COOK
CHILDREN’S.

COUNCILMAN
JUNGUS JORDAN
GOAL IS TO FURTHER
ENHANCE SERVICE AND
SUSTAINABILITY
PROGRAMS, EXPAND
FORT WORTH AND ITS
ECONOMIC VITALITY.

DOUG WIERSIG, PhD, PE

TPW DIRECTOR
CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD AT BHB, MENTOR
AND ADVISOR TO YOUNG,
BUDDING ENGINEERS.

BILL BAIRD, PE, RPLS

BHB FOUNDER
PAST TBPE MEMBER,
CURRENTLY DIRECTOR
FOR QUALITY, AWARD
WINNING QUILT MAKER.

ROXANNE PILLAR, PE
HUITT-ZOLLARS VP
PERSONAL
EXPERIENCES…
1SCENARIO
AN ENGINEER WHO HAD BEEN ON A CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR
FIVE YEARS, PROVIDING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES FOR APPROXIMATELY 150 PROJECTS WAS
MOONLIGHTING AS A SURVEYOR. HIS EMPLOYER FIRED HIM
WHEN THE SITUATION CAME TO LIGHT AND FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH THE TBPE. THE ENGINEER RECEIVED A DISCIPLINARY
HEARING BY THE TBPE WHO DID NOT RULE IN HIS FAVOR.
Discussion
Is there a conflict of interest? What
options did the engineer have? What
does the TBPE require an engineer to
do in a moonlighting situation? How
could the engineer have managed the
notification? Should the engineer
have ever done the work at all?
ETHICS PRACTICE ACT AND RULES p. 137.57
ENGINEERS SHALL BE OBJECTIVE AND TRUTHFUL

CODE (d) A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS WHEN

AN ENGINEER ACCEPTS EMPLOYMENT WHEN
REASONABLE PROBABILITY EXISTS THAT
THE ENGINEER’S OWN FINANCIAL, BUSINESS,
PROPERTY, OR PERSONAL INTEREST MAY
AFFECT ANY PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT,
DECISIONS, OR PRACTICES EXERCISED ON
BEHALF OF THE CLIENT OR EMPLOYER.
2 SCENARIO
A REVIEW ENGINEER’S COMMENT REQUIRES THAT THE ASPHALTIC
PAVEMENT ALTERNATIVE BE REMOVED FROM CONSTRUCTION
PLANS BECAUSE “THEY ONLY ALLOW CONCRETE.” THE PROJECT
ENGINEER REMOVES THE ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT DETAIL AND THE
PLANS ARE APPROVED. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE OWNER
INSISTS ON ASPHALT AND REQUESTS THAT THE PROJECT
ENGINEER PRODUCE THE CITY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ASPHALT.
Discussion
Should the project engineer have
questioned the reviewers comment?
Should the reviewer have made such a
comment? Has the review engineer acted
ethically? Who should pay for the
contractor’s change order due to delays?
Should the project engineer report the
review engineer to TBPE?
ETHICS
PRACTICE ACT AND RULES p. 137.57
ENGINEERS SHALL BE OBJECTIVE AND TRUTHFUL

(b) THE ISSUANCE OF ORAL OR WRITTEN

CODE ASSERTIONS IN THE PRACTICE OF

ENGINEERING SHALL NOT BE
MISLEADING OR SHALL NOT IN ANY
MANNER WHATSOEVER TEND TO CREATE
A MISLEADING IMPRESSION.
3 SCENARIO
THE OWNER OF A PERVIOUS PAVEMENT FACILITY DESIRES TO
REPLACE THE GRAVEL PARKING AND DRIVES WITH AN IMPERVIOUS
PAVEMENT. THE PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARES AND SUBMITS
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS DOCUMENTING ADEQUATE DRAINAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND NO-NEGATIVE IMPACT TO DOWNSTREAM
PROPERTY OWNERS. THE REVIEW ENGINEER EXPLAINS THAT THE
CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRES STORMWATER DETENTION.
Discussion
Can the project engineer responsibly
provide for on-site storm water detention
since it may have an adverse impact to
the downstream properties? What
responsibility does the review engineer
have; and should he/she require
adherence to an ordinance recognizing
its negative impacts?
 PRACTICE ACT AND RULES p. 137.55

ETHICS
ENGINEERS SHALL PROTECT THE PUBLIC

(b) ENGINEERS SHALL NOT PERFORM ANY

CODE
ENGINEERING FUNCTION WHICH, WHEN
MEASURED BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
ENGINEERING STANDARDS OR
PROCEDURES, IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO
RESULT IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF LIVES,
HEALTH, SAFETY, PROPERTY, OR WELFARE
OF THE PUBLIC.
MATTER