By Tara Hoke
Situation
Did the member violate ASCE's Code of Ethics by billing the municipality for work that had not been performed by his consulting firm? The alleged ethics violation occurred during a period when the Code of Ethics was undergoing revision. Article 9 of the code, in effect through December 1976, read as follows: "It shall be considered unprofessional and inconsistent with the honorable and dignified conduct and contrary to the public interest for any member of the American Society of Civil Engineers ... [to] act in any manner derogatory to the honor, integrity, or dignity of the engineering profession."
This provision was replaced in January 1977 by canon 6, which read as follows: "Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession." The guidelines to practice further stated that, under that canon, "engineers shall not knowingly act in a manner which will be derogatory to the honor, integrity, or dignity of the engineering profession or knowingly engage in business or professional practices of a fraudulent, dishonest, or unethical nature."
The current version of the Code of Ethics incorporates much of the language of this earlier revision. As amended this past July, canon 6 reads as follows: "Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption." Category (a) of the guidelines to practice for canon 6 reads as follows: "Engineers shall not knowingly engage in business or professional practices of a fraudulent, dishonest, or unethical nature." Category (c) of the guidelines for this canon has this to say: "Engineers shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all engineering or construction activities in which they are engaged."
Question
Did the member violate ASCE's Code of Ethics by billing the municipality for work that had not been performed by his consulting firm?
The alleged ethics violation occurred during a period when the Code of Ethics was undergoing revision. Article 9 of the code, in effect through December 1976, read as follows: "It shall be considered unprofessional and inconsistent with the honorable and dignified conduct and contrary to the public interest for any member of the American Society of Civil Engineers ... [to] act in any manner derogatory to the honor, integrity, or dignity of the engineering profession."
This provision was replaced in January 1977 by canon 6, which read as follows: "Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession." The guidelines to practice further stated that, under that canon, "engineers shall not knowingly act in a manner which will be derogatory to the honor, integrity, or dignity of the engineering profession or knowingly engage in business or professional practices of a fraudulent, dishonest, or unethical nature."
The current version of the Code of Ethics incorporates much of the language of this earlier revision. As amended this past July, canon 6 reads as follows: "Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption." Category (a) of the guidelines to practice for canon 6 reads as follows: "Engineers shall not knowingly engage in business or professional practices of a fraudulent, dishonest, or unethical nature." Category (c) of the guidelines for this canon has this to say: "Engineers shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all engineering or construction activities in which they are engaged."
Decision
The ASCE member met with two representatives of the CPC in an informal session. The member stated that at the time the invoices were submitted he was not aware that the design work had been performed by municipal employees rather than by his own staff. He acknowledged that the engineering registration seal on the drawings was his but claimed that he had reviewed and checked the engineering documents before affixing his seal.
The CPC voted unanimously to present the case to the Board of Direction at a full hearing and to charge the member with violation of article 9 of the Code of Ethics as in effect through 1976 and with violation of canon 6 of the Code of Ethics as adopted in 1977.
The board reviewed the evidence from the CPC report and the civil trial transcripts and found that the member had indeed violated the Code of Ethics. Its members voted to suspend the person's membership in the Society for five years and to publish an account of its action in Civil Engineering without citing the member by name.
Tara Hoke is ASCE’s general counsel and a contributing editor to Civil Engineering.
© ASCE, ASCE News, October, 2006
