I have always seen the role of engineers in public service as assisting the public to understand technical issues. I have also had experience in volunteer work in non-technical (John Q Citizen) capacity on local civic issues. However, if a civil engineer seeks an elected position in his or her community (mayor, city council, etc.), under what circumstances would it be considered a conflict of interest? Would such an elected position obligate the engineer to apply engineering standards to such common issues as safety in the municipality? Is is possible to separate professional responsibility from the political pressures?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
When Does Public Service Become Conflict of Interest? 2
- Thread starter rockchip
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
Thanks for the response PSE. For the record, I personally am not considering these positions. The matter of personal profit is a difficult one. Consider that the persons of whom I speak are civil engineers who aid in the governance of local communities. Their firms, of which they are part owners, operate throughout the community. How do you gauge personal profit? Do these individuals owe a duty of care to recuse themselves of any engineering within the communities they govern? Where is the line to be drawn?
-
2
- #4
I have been on the Town Board where I live the past eight years. The engineering firm we use is one where I was formerly employeed (prior to being elected to the board).
However, I have many personal friends who are employeed there and even considered returning to the firm at one time. During that time of consideration (a couple of weeks during which there was no activity between the Town and the firm), the partners involved and I had several conversations about work with the Town. The area I would have worked in would have been the industrial group with no dealings with the Town or clients within the Town. Also, the use of the firm is sporadic and except for one project is very minor in terms of billings. For a variety of reasons I declined returning and told the other Board members what had happened.
In these situations, you need to look at the people you represent and do what is in their best interest. They elected you to do just that. I have voted to select other firms over my previous employer because they didn't offer the best value or expertise.
To answer rockchip's question, I think someone (if an officer/partner/etc) would have to recuse themselves from performing work in the community they govern. If the board member were an employee (not an owner) they should not work on projects in or for that municipality, approve bills at the municipal level (abstain specifically from approving that bill during the audit), be involved in consultant selection when their firm is involved, etc. There may have to be professional sacrifice, but when you decide to be involve that is something one must consider.
Having an engineer on a local municipal board, especially in a small town (about 3500 people and almost as many cows), in my opinion is valuable. It helps with dealing with state regulatory agencies, town highway issues, etc.
However, I have many personal friends who are employeed there and even considered returning to the firm at one time. During that time of consideration (a couple of weeks during which there was no activity between the Town and the firm), the partners involved and I had several conversations about work with the Town. The area I would have worked in would have been the industrial group with no dealings with the Town or clients within the Town. Also, the use of the firm is sporadic and except for one project is very minor in terms of billings. For a variety of reasons I declined returning and told the other Board members what had happened.
In these situations, you need to look at the people you represent and do what is in their best interest. They elected you to do just that. I have voted to select other firms over my previous employer because they didn't offer the best value or expertise.
To answer rockchip's question, I think someone (if an officer/partner/etc) would have to recuse themselves from performing work in the community they govern. If the board member were an employee (not an owner) they should not work on projects in or for that municipality, approve bills at the municipal level (abstain specifically from approving that bill during the audit), be involved in consultant selection when their firm is involved, etc. There may have to be professional sacrifice, but when you decide to be involve that is something one must consider.
Having an engineer on a local municipal board, especially in a small town (about 3500 people and almost as many cows), in my opinion is valuable. It helps with dealing with state regulatory agencies, town highway issues, etc.
I read rockchip’s original question not so much in the area of conflict between one’s employment and civic service, which I think dig1 has fully addressed, as a question between the duties of a politician and an engineer outside the business realm.
To my way of thinking there is no conflict between one’s political duties and one’s engineering ethics. As an engineer your primary duty is to protect the public. As a politician your primary duty is to serve the public. No potential for conflict there.
The problem arises when a politician forgets that he is there to serve the electorate and becomes a self-serving politician who acts in his best interest instead of the best interests of the public. Then he is in conflict with his duties as an engineer as well as his duties as a politician.
There is always room for discussion on what the public’s best interests are and that is what elections are for.
For safety in the municipality I see no differential between engineering standards and civic standards. Safety standards are usually enshrined in codes and laws and we have to follow them if we are engineers or not. Being engineers we may be more familiar with them and better able to understand them but everyone, engineer, politician or John Q. Public has to follow them.
I was once involved in a politically hot issue. In the course of that I was exposed to the majority of the federal and provincial leaders in Manitoba. The only one who was actually able to get a grasp of the issue and see it as it really was and not as they wanted to see it was the then premier (similar to a state governor) Garry Filmon P.Eng. I think that says a lot for having engineers in public office. Since then I have always voted for any engineer running if I support his position or not simply because I feel that he would at least give every issue honest consideration.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
To my way of thinking there is no conflict between one’s political duties and one’s engineering ethics. As an engineer your primary duty is to protect the public. As a politician your primary duty is to serve the public. No potential for conflict there.
The problem arises when a politician forgets that he is there to serve the electorate and becomes a self-serving politician who acts in his best interest instead of the best interests of the public. Then he is in conflict with his duties as an engineer as well as his duties as a politician.
There is always room for discussion on what the public’s best interests are and that is what elections are for.
For safety in the municipality I see no differential between engineering standards and civic standards. Safety standards are usually enshrined in codes and laws and we have to follow them if we are engineers or not. Being engineers we may be more familiar with them and better able to understand them but everyone, engineer, politician or John Q. Public has to follow them.
I was once involved in a politically hot issue. In the course of that I was exposed to the majority of the federal and provincial leaders in Manitoba. The only one who was actually able to get a grasp of the issue and see it as it really was and not as they wanted to see it was the then premier (similar to a state governor) Garry Filmon P.Eng. I think that says a lot for having engineers in public office. Since then I have always voted for any engineer running if I support his position or not simply because I feel that he would at least give every issue honest consideration.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
- Thread starter
- #7
RDK- I agree with you on the matter of protecting the public of course. I sense that the ideal of "noble public service" is assumed in your response and I believe as you do that we as engineers should seek opportunities to have some positive influence in our communities. However, I wanted to focus attention in one area - that of conflict of interest. I found the NSPE web site at :to be useful, and several sections of the guidelines deal with what I am most interested in. For example, Sections II.4.d&e deal with engineers in public service and prohibits engineers from participating in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations and also prohibits accepting any contracts with a governmental boty on which a principal or officer of their firm serves as a member.
Section III.2.a encourages engineers to seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs and names career guidance for youth and advancement of safety, health and well-being of community as a goal. This last section goes to the heart of my question. Any thoughts?
Section III.2.a encourages engineers to seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs and names career guidance for youth and advancement of safety, health and well-being of community as a goal. This last section goes to the heart of my question. Any thoughts?
"protecting the public" is a phrase rife with contradictory interpretations. As a PE, you have rules and regulations that form the core of professional competence and behavior.
As a public official, what is the meaning of "protect the public?" To one party, it means eliminating government oversight and expediture of public funds; to another, it's the opposite.
I don't think there's any conflict of interest with respect to being an engineer, as you would not be required to certify your decisions as a PE. The conflict is what is the "greater good?" Given that a half-million people die from DUI-related driving and a similar number die from smoking related diseases, would you pass a law to ban alcohol and cigarettes? How do you balance the obvious good that would arise from that against the elimination of free choice?
As an engineer, you can easily verify and validate the statistics and physical effects, but the decision is not an engineering decision. It's more like being a program manager, wherein you have to weigh cost, efficacy, and customer desires. As a public official, your customer and your employer is the "public", but the customer is divided on every single issue, and may not even be aware or care about the conflict.
TTFN
As a public official, what is the meaning of "protect the public?" To one party, it means eliminating government oversight and expediture of public funds; to another, it's the opposite.
I don't think there's any conflict of interest with respect to being an engineer, as you would not be required to certify your decisions as a PE. The conflict is what is the "greater good?" Given that a half-million people die from DUI-related driving and a similar number die from smoking related diseases, would you pass a law to ban alcohol and cigarettes? How do you balance the obvious good that would arise from that against the elimination of free choice?
As an engineer, you can easily verify and validate the statistics and physical effects, but the decision is not an engineering decision. It's more like being a program manager, wherein you have to weigh cost, efficacy, and customer desires. As a public official, your customer and your employer is the "public", but the customer is divided on every single issue, and may not even be aware or care about the conflict.
TTFN
Yes, in politics the goal of protecting the public is a wide area and can be construed in many contradictory ways. That is why we have elections.
I have no problem with a politician serving the segment of the community that elected him, as long as he was open and honest about it during the election. That would have no conflict with engineering ethics either.
What I do have a problem with is a politician who once elected reneges on the election promises made. That would have a conflict with engineering ethics.
Part of the thread has been dealing with the business ethics of being a politician and an engineering businessman in the community. I really have nothing to add to dig1’s comments above except to say that the ethical ground may not be as clear as we would want it to be.
For example, lets assume that an engineer-politician- businessman was sitting on a board that was to advise on a consulting contract and because of the conflict (or any other reason) the business chose not to submit a proposal. Could the engineer-politician-businessman still comment and vote on the proposal? Some would say yes because he has removed his business from the competition and as a professional involved in the industry would have some special insight that others would not have. Some would say no because he could still influence the award in such a manner that would be of benefit to his business. i.e. to a competitor who would then not be able to bid on other non-government work.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
I have no problem with a politician serving the segment of the community that elected him, as long as he was open and honest about it during the election. That would have no conflict with engineering ethics either.
What I do have a problem with is a politician who once elected reneges on the election promises made. That would have a conflict with engineering ethics.
Part of the thread has been dealing with the business ethics of being a politician and an engineering businessman in the community. I really have nothing to add to dig1’s comments above except to say that the ethical ground may not be as clear as we would want it to be.
For example, lets assume that an engineer-politician- businessman was sitting on a board that was to advise on a consulting contract and because of the conflict (or any other reason) the business chose not to submit a proposal. Could the engineer-politician-businessman still comment and vote on the proposal? Some would say yes because he has removed his business from the competition and as a professional involved in the industry would have some special insight that others would not have. Some would say no because he could still influence the award in such a manner that would be of benefit to his business. i.e. to a competitor who would then not be able to bid on other non-government work.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
I think that scenario is rarely as clear-cut as that. "Reneging" has interesting connotations with respect to intent. But, as a candidate, you do not always have full information, which you find out after the fact. I think that promises from a candidate have to taken with a large grain of salt in any case.
You promise to accomplish something, but later find out that executing the promise will cause damage to the environment or cause a 200% increase in taxes. Are you reneging or are you "protecting the public", from yourself, in this case.
Promises made, in the absence of complete data, is not unlike a preliminary engineering analysis that is later contradicted by analysis with more complete data.
TTFN
You promise to accomplish something, but later find out that executing the promise will cause damage to the environment or cause a 200% increase in taxes. Are you reneging or are you "protecting the public", from yourself, in this case.
Promises made, in the absence of complete data, is not unlike a preliminary engineering analysis that is later contradicted by analysis with more complete data.
TTFN
![[bat]](/data/assets/smilies/bat.gif "[bat] [bat]")
The most important thing is openness and transparency. There will always be some conflicts of interest. For an engineer those conflicts are more easily defended than for many of the professions like lawyers and real estate agents that are common in politics. It is even becoming common for state employees like teachers to hold political office. State what you conflicts are while seeking and holding office. Make any dealings that involve those conflicts as open and transparent as possible.
ProEpro
ProEpro
- Status
Similar threads
