Better to ask permission or to ask for forgiveness? 11

[PM]

A colleague who works in my public agency provides expert design advice and related services to a sister agency (ie. our client) who themselves collaborate with a third quasi-independent public organization for which they have statutory control. This latter organization announced plans to close one of their public facilities in order to save operating cost. The closure plan was very controversial, affecting the families of many in the public. As it turns out, my colleague was one of the many who was negatively affected by the planned closure.

On his own initiative and time, he visited the building where existing operations were planned to be consolidated and conducted a health and safety survey. A few days later, at a public meeting hosted by the managing organization, he publically challenged the organization's plans for consolidating operations to one distant existing building by concluding that building was infested with mold and had many structural deficiencies.

My co-worker never discussed his positions with supervisors or staff before the fact. He was not directly or indirectly providing services related to the subject facilities as part of his employment duties. The local news reported these sensational new findings and our sister agency 'blew-up' with anger and embarrassment. After the crap was cleaned from the fan, my colleague was targeted by our client agency for official sanction and complaints of conflict of interest, disloyalty and deception.

If my colleague were your subordinate, what action (if any) would you take and what positions would you take?

 

[TheBlacksmith]

While I support them, I have been improperly credited with making statements that VPL made. This is indeed a tricky area, in that once you are identified as a government official, or I was in the past a "factory representative", your opinions gain weight and credence until disproven and you need to be careful that what you say in a public forum supports the "company line." The issue transcends public service and includes company loyalty. I think our current administration has had some people talking out of turn regarding the war on terrorism as an example.

Blacksmith

 

[PSE]

PM

Please consider the following:

In accepting a position with an employer either in the public sector or not, the employee gains an obligation to perform their duties within the guidelines and policies established by that employer. These procedures establish how the company conducts business and should include methods of bringing problematic issues to a resolution within the company framework. It is unlikely that this framework includes use of a public forum on a routine basis. The negative feedback (at least mine) on your colleagues actions in the various post responses indicate a belief that the internal procedures for bringing a problem to resolution should have been followed before entering a public forum. If the problem is not resolvable within the established corporate procedures and there could be imminent danger to the public, then an employee has an obligation to go outside the corporate structure.

As an employee, an individual also ends up as a representative of their employer. Within the public arena, the perception can be made (rightly or not), that an individuals statements presented under a manner of professional authority, are representative of their employer. This can lead to consequences that the employer must respond to. As soon as I begin talking to anyone at any time about the work that I do, even to respond to a seemingly innocuous question, I need to take into account the possible repercussions to my employer of a reply. Could the reply inadvertently affect a project schedule, the ability to close a sale, stock price, the list could go on.

All this aside, I would welcome and encourage participation in public forums regardless of whether they work within the private or public sector. I do not believe that employees in one sector are any more or less ethical than those in the other. You are simply working for an employer with a different set of motivations and therefore may fall under different imposed constraints. I would caution someone to make it clear that when presenting one's opinion, it is simply their own and not to be misconstrued as representative of their employer. One should (in my opinion), refrain from commenting without prior consent, to the public on issues that their employer may have either a direct or indirect interest in due to potential conflict of interest perceptions.

Finally, I have noted in the various public meetings that I have attended, that the public attending such meetings tend to be those individuals who have an interest in the information presented and possible resulting actions. Therefore, in my opinion, the attendee's are not likely to be representative of the public as a whole. The caveat here is that the public as a whole is not likely to care one way or another on an issue unless it does indeed affect them. Even so, I would recommend entering commentary into the public arena through the press in order to let the greater public bandy it about for a while first.

PSE

 

[PM]

Blacksmith: Appologies for crediting VPL's comments to you. This only proves I should read what I write before posting it.

Your comment "The issue transcends public service and includes company loyalty" seems true enough, but my point is that public organizations, by definition, serve the collective public good (ie. their prime directive). Therefore any loyal agent of a public organization must also act in the public good. The problems seem to arise when either the employee or the agency's interest conflict with the public interest. Until now we presumed that it is the employee who is more likely to breach his ethical duty to the agency and thereby the Public. It seems probable that agencies are just as likely to do this also. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that companies don't act in the public interest, but rather their primary mission is to serve the shareholders usually by earning profit. Prominent examples of excessive drive for profit making include the ENRON and Worldcom scandals. (Obviously, not-for-profit firms act more like public agencies)

If I'm reading the entrails properly, I think what some are suggesting is that public servants should avoid disclosing their employment affiliations when participating in a public forum. This seems fair enough, but sometimes a person's reputation preceeds them, so I guess it's then doubly important to make it clear your comments and opinions are personal rather than corporate.

 

[redtrumpet]

PM:

I feel you have not done a clear job in relating the facts of this case and this may be the reason some comments seem harsh. You consistently try to tell us this individual was not in a conflict of interest, and that he is a potential white knight for speaking out from underneath the cloak of public agency secrecy. However, it is evident the person in question had a clear personal interest in this matter. I quote verbatim from your own posts:

"The closure plan was very controversial, affecting the families of many in the public. As it turns out, my colleague was one of the many who was negatively affected by the planned closure."

"If he were not impacted by the pending closure, he would not have inspected the building on his own time."

"Because this building impacted his family, he undertook the inspection."

"Actually he never identified himself as anything other than one of the individuals affected by the pending facility closure."

In light of the above, what confidence does the general public have that this official acted objectively and in the interest of the public good? If he found serious problems, why did he not ask an independent colleague with no interest in the outcome to verify his findings? Why choose the sensationalistic approach of exposing all at a public meeting? Did you investigate this person's field notes and the basis for his conclusions? Are they in the realm of opinion, or are they supported by the facts?

If you want to defend the right of a public official to partake in a public forum as a private citizen, I am all for it. Just pick a better poster boy next time.

 

[Haf]

PM,

I have to agree with redtrumpet on this one. As I read through your posts, I can't help but wonder if the reason for your inexplicable defense of this individual is that he is not a "colleague" after all.

I do have some questions, though:

1. Were your colleague's findings (mold and structural deficiencies) truly accurate, and not unfairly harsh? Are they the type of findings that could be arbitrarily applied to other buildings and facilities with relative ease? If this is the case, then there is little doubt that your colleague's personal interest clouded his assessment of the situation.

2. What were the results of past health and safety surveys conducted at this facility? Were they conducted by competent individuals? I assume, since this building was in operation at the time of your colleagues survey, that the facility had passed such surveys in the past. This brings to bear the question of why your colleague's survey would be in disagreement (the obvious answer being personal interest).

3. It is obvious that your colleague performed a "professional grade" inspection on the facility, instead of the casual inspections undoubtedly expected by the building manager. Since your colleague was acting in a "professional" capacity, he should have pursued resolvement of his findings in a professional manner. When such deficiencies are found in any given facility, what is the typical response (warnings, fines, follow up inspections that check for resolvement, etc.)? I doubt that such findings are typically brought to light at a public meeting (with no warning) or aired by the local media. Why did your colleague not pursue resolvement through professional avenues? (From your description above, I could give you a motive.)

If you ask me, this whole situation stinks. You have very eloquently defended and rationalized your colleagues actions, but when it comes to ethics, I personally believe that your gut feeling is usually right. You may be able to technically defend your colleague, but my gut tells me what he did was not right.

Haf

 

[PM]

redtrumpet:

I haven't found your comments, or those of anyone else in this thread for that matter, to be harsh. Quite the contrary. I hope I didn't paint my co-worker as a "white knight", because I don't believe that would be appropriate. If I didn't present the salient facts of this case as concisely as possible, please accept the fact that my time constraints prevent me from a more polished presentation.

I was trying to deliver the facts as I understand them, without embellishment or personal bias. As the thread developed, I added my own opinions as a response, or perhaps a rebuttal, to some of the points raised. My motives are not to 'prove my case', but rather to explore a profoundly difficult issue that is anything but black and white to me. I'm not at all sure there is substantial value in gaining agreement from respondents. It's the contemplation of the various issues raised that I appreciate most.

As to your question about public confidence in the objectivity of public servants, I don't thing there is any issue of that in this case. As noted earlier, this guy represented his family at the public meeting and not his employer. I understand that participants at the meeting understood this.

I did not investigate his field notes or consider the scientific accuracy of his statements. I'm confident that his public comments are both opinions and accurate. For example if you see a gray to black coating on pipe lagging and organic based paints in a warm damp environment, you can reasonably assume this is mould. I'm unaware of any testing to back-up his opinions, but given his expertise in this field, I would be reluctant to challenge the opinion.

Haf:

Point 1. see above. I doubt the degree of defects being reported could be considered arbitrary and they certainly could not be ascribed to just any building. As to 'clouding judgement', I have no doubt. The report undoubtedly contained some exaggerations, but none, I'm told, beyond the normal embellishment one finds in every report where the author is attempting to prove his case. This is obviously a matter of degree and as much as we try to avoid any overt exaggeration, we all do some, even if unconsciously.

Point 2. I'm not aware of this information. Based on my own experience, any previous surveys are probably fairly old. (say 15 years plus or minus)

Point 3. By professional manner, I'm not sure if you mean through his employment or in a manner appropriate to his profession. I think he tried to do the latter, because the former could be construed as unprofessional, (qv. previous posts for background).

There seems to be a consensus forming around the notion that sandbagging an unprepared public official in a public meeting (that the official set up for the very purpose of raising concerns) is somehow wrong. I suspect that we each vicariously share the embarrassment of that official who set up a process that he was not prepared for and got blindsided.

Truth is, at least around here, that the public likes to tell their public officials a thing or two they don't know. The public like to think that these public meetings are not mere window dressing designed to present a fait a compli.

As I noted in a previous post, the officials involved actually came out of this somewaht ahead of the game, but they a) didn't quite realize it at first and b) they didn't like the means of their enlightenment. I suspect they will be more prepared in future. For me, if I may misquote Shakespear, this case generated more light than heat, but I'm not convinced from this thread that everyone would agree.

 

[gibfrog]

I agree with PM. The rest of y'all are brown noses. However, it probably was not a very wise career move, but no disciplinary action is warrented and no ethical violations occured. Clifford H Laubstein
FL Registered PE 58662

 

[gibfrog]

My opinion is based upon the following:

1) The person clearly expressed a PERSONAL opinion as an affected party at a public heraring meant to solicit such public input.

2) The engineer conducted the investigation as a PRIVATE individual during a PUBLIC tour.

3) In the great USA, one has the right to express a personal opinion. Even the president has the right to a personal opinion.

4) Professional ethics only apply to my professional life not my private life. Clifford H Laubstein
FL Registered PE 58662

 

[redtrumpet]

Clifford - you can't express a personal opinion using your professional knowledge and leave your professional ethics at the door. Looks like I won't be hiring you either.

 

[gibfrog]

Redtrumpet you are entering a slippery slope. What are the limits of this "professional knowledge" and the derivative professional ethical obligations?

1) Can you or any engineer express an personal opinion based upon a mathematical analysis of economic alternatives? For example can help your friend or family with a mortgage interest rate versus points analysis or a car loan versus lease and buy back without incuring professional liability or issuing a signed and sealed document or asking your employer's permission? Economic analysis is a core engineering function and part of the FE/PE exam.

2) As an Electrical PE, can you publically express personal opinions as to the virtues/vices of various entertainment systems, computer systems or consumer electronic items, knowing full well that some elements of "professional knowledge" will be used.
2a) Is it OK if you or your firm has no dealings in this field or with any companies that produce such items?

3) Must this "professional knowledge" be restricterd to engineers? May contractors or scientists or non-engineering professionals share elements of this knowledge without incurring equivilent ethical obligations?
3a)If so why and at what point do non-engineers who aquire engineering "professional knowledge" incur or should incur equivilent ethical obligations?

4) Can you define this "professional knowledge" beyond the terms of propriaty information or confidential client information in such a manner as to guide me to when I may and may not freely issue a personal opinion? For example, as a civil/environmental engineer, may I express a personal opinion about FCC short wave radio regulations?
4a) What if I study the issue intensively, may I still issue a personal opinion or do I cross a threshold when I become too knowledgable?


Clifford H Laubstein
FL Registered PE 58662

 

[PM]

gibfrog mentioned in one of his posts that, "Professional ethics only apply to my professional life not my private life." redtrumpet indicates, ". . .you can't express a personal opinion using your professional knowledge . . ."

Both these comments suggest that there is a separate set of rules for each circumstance. I'm not clear the source of these canons. None of the engineering licensing bodies that I've reviewed have these as ethical standards. Are these in fact codified in some jurisdictions? Could someone post the actual cannon?

In my jurisdiction, one's ethical canons are singular and indivisible from the individual as a whole. One's moral code should not shift with the circumstances. That's the funny thing about values. They only get in the way when it's inconvenient. For example, if at home, you embrace the value that it is wrong to assault children, then it can't be right to assault children at work.

This is partly what I was driving at when I mentioned Jane Jacob's book Systems of Survival where she introduces the notion of different cultural and ethical norms between the public and private sectors. She makes the point, quite convincingly, that it is difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to act ethically if they change employment from the private to public sectors (and vice versa).

gibfrog is getting to the nub of my main issue about the propriety of public comment by public officials. I'm not talking about 'whistle blowing', as there seems to be a fairly clear set of rules on how to proceed in circumstances where employment and social prerogatives are in conflict. I'm mostly interested in this case because it did not involve conflicts per se.

Regards,

 

[Hush]

I’ve supplied the link to Alberta’s Code of Ethics, which also includes links to case studies and interpretations some of which come pretty close to this situation. This Code is similar to most Associations in Canada.

http://www.apegga.org/members/registration/documents/code.htm

Judging from the info supplied I think you could interpret this case either way; personally I wouldn’t have gone the route this fellow did but that’s me. What I’ve found more interesting is some of the side issues this topic has raised. One issue in particular is the confusion between morals and ethics. My definition as follows (hopefully someone can provide a better one):

Morals are personal actions based on beliefs gained through experience.
Ethics are a set of rules dictated by society.

It strikes me that this person’s actions were based on his moral beliefs rather than his professional ethics.

 

[PM]

Hush:

Please clarify. Do your ethics rules embrace the view that "Professional ethics only apply to professional life not private life." and ". . .you can't express a personal opinion using your professional knowledge . . ."?

I didn't see this in your ethics code, but perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Hush]

I'm ashamed to say it's been a long time since I've gone over the Code of Ethics in any depth and even longer since I took the oath, sometimes I get the two confused and more often that not I'll throw in personal opinions. So I'll give you just that, my personal opinion.

1) I believe what separates a professional from a tradesperson is an adherence to a code of ethics. I believe (and I think the Code of Ethics for my jurisdiction backs this up if you read between the lines) that this applies to all aspects of my life.

2) There is no rule against expressing a personal opinion in a public forum using professional knowledge (in fact I think it should be encouraged if it benefits the public) providing:

A) You're competent on the subject.
B) If the opinion is in conflict with your employer you notify them prior to doing so.
C) The opinion does not cause undue damage to the profession, a fellow professional, or your employer.

 

[PSE]

PM, this is certainly becoming one of the more interesting threads to revisit. I agree with the statement that "...one's ethical canons are singular and indivisible from the individual as a whole." I am unsure as to how someone could separate their ethical behavior between personal and professional. I would submit that each of us operates under an unique moral and ethical code based upon our personality and upbringing.

I could also see where "...the notion of different cultural and ethical norms between the public and private sectors." could come into being. While we each have our own moral and ethical compass, society can operate in a different mode depending upon nation, region, state, etc. While an individuals compass tends to remain constant, societies may/do shift over time. By extrapolation, the private sector (profit motivation) and the public sector (societal and/or regulatory motivation) could evolve to have different ethical systems from each other. I remain unconvinced however, that an individual working within one sector would find themselves incapable of acting ethically within the other. It would be a matter of deciding if one's own moral and ethical code, would dovetail with the framework of either sector. An example perhaps would be to look at military personnel who seem quite capable of making a successful transfer into the private sector.

In terms of public comments made by public officials, I would use the following "filter" to determine whether or not to make a comment or statement using my "professional background". "Could this statement be perceived to be representative of my employer and does my employer have, or could be perceived to have, a potential interest in this issue?" The key word here is perception, either on the part of the public, or the employer. If the answer is yes, then I would choose either not to comment or to make clear that the comment is distinctly my own and not representative of my employer. If anyone cares to debate the power of perception, just look at the stock market in the US lately.

Regards,

PSE

 

[PM]

Hush:

I agree with your basic point although I'd add that perhaps a code of ethics alone may not distinguish professionals because there are a few similar codes among trade guilds. As far as I know, the one common thread throughout all statutory professions is the accountability of practitioners through discipline tribunals where accused are adjudicated by their peers.

PSE:

I agree with you that this thread has been interesting. I particularly appreciate how the thread goes in places I would never had thought of myself. I think everyone who hears the basic facts of this case (including me) would first conclude that my colleague was wrong to proceed in the way he did. The more we look into it however, the more unsure we become with the ethical foundation of our condemnation.

My point '. . . that an individual working within one sector would find themselves incapable of acting ethically within the other. . ." was perhaps somewhat exaggerated to make the point, but I'm convinced is generally true. I've known a number of people who either joined the public service from the private sector or vice versa (including myself). In every case these people had difficulties.

The source of this seems to stem from a distorted perception of the other side. Once on the other side of the fence, one consultant friend who joined a municipal government office became down right officious and 'bureaucratic'. She became almost more catholic than the Pope. This went on for almost a year when some of her co-workers suggested she ease up. She apparently thought she was fitting in and doing a good job.

I have some difficulty with your comment, "Could this statement be perceived to be. . .". The standard seems too ambiguous. Anything could be perceived to mean almost anything. For example have you ever written a post to this or another forum only to read it a week or a month later? You look at it incredulously wondering how you could be so terse or worse. Of course you originally wrote the message in a light hearted mood, but some how a week later you come off looking like Attila the Hun. That's my point, . . .perception could imply anything. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason we don't all start name calling each other on this forum is because we perceive all respondents to be ethically motivated and they (like me) don't always have the time to bullet proof and make politically correct, every utterance we make.

Perhaps there should be a more rigorous, less subjective basis.

Regards,

 

[gibfrog]

I have an issue with the following concept -

The is one code of ethics that applies to ones behavior at all times onces one becomes a professional. Naaaaaa.
For example, as an engineer, I am forbidden to misrepresent data. As a parent, I have the right to shield my child from harsh realities by telling while lies about Santa Claus or Death or my child's performance or whatever. Should I be charged with unethical behavior for PERSONAL white lies? What about using my "professional knowledge", but acting as a PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, to convince my local property appraiser to reduce my property assessment by exaggerating my property's defects? Is gaming the system a violation of my professional ethics?

This means I believe in situational ethics. Oh Well! The moral north is within me and points from me to G-D. I pray that I find to strength to follow it always.
Clifford H Laubstein
FL Registered PE 58662

 

[PM]

gibfrog;

I take your point about a single ethical standard for home and office, but I would argue a couple of points:[ol][li]There is no one singular unified ethical standard for all. Accordingly, we should judge other's ethical behaviour by their own standards, the details of which were communicated in advance. Clearly, there are many and varied ethical norms throughout the world, some based on professional status, some on religious grounds, some on social and political imperatives. Individual ethics are a mis mash of lots of different rules.[/li] [li]An individual's values are not the only motivation for action, just the most fundamental justification of their behaviour. For example if one believes in the 'sanctity of life', one can not simultaneously claim justification for capital punishment or warfare. Values are only tested when it is inconvenient or unpopular. So if you endorse warfare, for exampe, you can not coincidently embrace the 'sanctity of life' ethic also. Not that we don't all try to rationalize these issues, but if values are to mean anything, they must be sacrosanct.[/li][/ol]It seems to me that ethics are the formalized rules that define our value system. If we violate our own ethics we must be unethical.

A lawyer friend is fond of reminding me that litigants should never go to court based on their principles, . . . better to base their case on practicalities. I'm not sure what this says about his ethics, but it seems that thinking is the way most of us go about our daily tasks. This highlights the fact that most of our behaviour is not values based, but rooted in practicalities. If you hold the value to never lie, then stories about Santa Claus to your children violates that precept. The fact is few people on this planet hold such a value. Perhaps we believe in never maliciously deceiving, but who can honestly claim never to lie?

Whatever the case, if one behaves in one manner at the office and another manner at home, I doubt we can claim the moral inspiration. By the way, I'm not suggesting we should be consistent everywhere, I'm merely making the distinction that most of our behaviour is not driven by our moral values and ethics.
Regards,

 

[redtrumpet]

Boy, this thread is sure heating up. I don't believe in kicking a dead horse, though, so this is my final two cents.

If a supplier drops a $250 gift on my desk, is it ethical for me to accept it? Even if the gift doesn't influence my opinion one way or the other toward the supplier, there is a risk of conflict of interest and my employer can and will discipline me for accepting the gift.

Now, instead of a gift, I have a personal stake in whether an agency closes a building and consolidates its operations in another. Even if my personal stake doesn't influence my opinion one way or the other toward the planned shutdown, there is a risk of conflict of interest. However, since my employer isn't affected, and this is my own personal life, is there a conflict of interest? Normally not - we can all lobby for whatever we believe in on our own time, right? I can join a political party, campaign for animal rights, join a white power militia, whatever I want. Because I'm doing it all as a private individual, right?

Except - and I will have to use PM's own words here as he is the only direct witness to the matter - consider the following:

"by concluding that building was infested with mold and had many structural deficiencies." Structural deficiencies? How many laymen are qualified to talk about "structural deficiencies"? That sounds like the domain of - the professional engineer.

"my co-worker seems to have applied his skills and knowledge to support his agency’s mission." Skills and knowledge as what? - a professional engineer.

"The author is known and his credentials and all relevant affiliations are a matter of public record." Those would be the credentials and affiliations of - a professional engineer.

Oh, but at the end of the day, he was just a private individual expressing a personal opinion. How convenient, to be able to turn that "professional engineer" designation on and off at his convenience.

It is too bad the engineering codes of ethics don't speak to motive.

What if someone at the meeting knew he was a professional engineer (after all, the author is known and his credentials a matter of public record); or wondered how he was qualified to speak on the apparent problems on the building, and asked him afterwards if he was an engineer? In short, if even one person at that public meeting based an opinion on Mr. X's statements, and believed that Mr. X was speaking as a professional engineer and not as a private individual...then you are right, gibfrog, we are entering a slippery slope.

You're right; I could find no canon in the engineering code of ethics this individual had violated. But the whole issue has a smell to it, and I repeat that I would not want this guy working with me, for me, or anywhere near me.

 

[PM]

redtrumpet:
You make some very compelling arguments, and as said previously, I think respondents on this thread have generated "more light than heat". Not-with-standing this, I hope no one was offended to-date by our posts. I realize personal ethics are near & dear to people, and it would not take much to unintentionally trip over our language to put someone on the defensive.

Thank you all for your comments. I like the idea that I'm not the only one asking myself tough, ethical and practical questions. As I get older, I increasingly conclude that the questions we ask ourselves are often more important than the answers we come up with.

We're up to 38 posts on this thread, and it seems we've covered a lot of ground:.[ul][li]duty of care to the Public, . . . to Employers, . . . to Others?,[/li] [li]faithful agency (loyalty),[/li][li]conflict of interest,[/li][li]"whistle blowing",[/li][li]deception and / or mis-representation,[/li][li]obligation for reticence except based on competence / expertise and honest conviction and[/li][li]probably a few others[/li][/ul]
I sense we've squeezed this case for most of its worth, but before I leave this dog to lay down and sleep, I thought I'd add one more minor fact that shouldn't affect our analysis of the case. My colleague is an Architect. I realize some of us engineers consider architects something akin to the professional equivalent of our mortal enemy, the Yin to our Yang, but here in our department, ". . . cats and dogs are sleeping together . . ." ;-) (metaphorically speaking to quote Bill Murray in the movie Ghost Busters).

(Ed. Why did I just hear a collective sigh from all those analytical engineers out there in cyberspace uttering "quod edum demonstratum" under their breath.

Thanks again for your comments,
Cheers