EE 1323 Homework #2 UTSA
Content
EE 1323, Homework #2 Due in class on Friday, February 15, 2013 PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR SECTION NUMBER AND YOUR ABC123 UTSA ID ON YOUR HOMEWORK. Consult the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II Rules of Practice to answer problems 1 though 5.For these problems, list the applicable subsection that would apply to the ethical situation described, for example II.1.a.
1. Which subsection would apply to an electrical engineer signing the design plan for a sewer system?
Section II.1.b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards.
2. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who has knowledge of a violation of the NSPE Ethics Code?
Section II.1.f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
3. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who offers to pay a percentage of his/her contract earnings to the client’s employee who awarded him/her the contract?
Section II.5.b.
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding 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 bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
4. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who, while testifying to a state board, left out on purpose some information that was relevant to the investigation?
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, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
5. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who, while offering advice to his/her clients as to which company to hire fora project, failed to disclose the fact that the engineer had an ownership stake in one of the companies (i.e., a conflict ofinterest)?
Section III.5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.
6. Review the first set of class notes on Professional Ethics where they discuss the Missouri, TX TV Antenna case. In youropinion, who
was more ethically at fault, the antenna design company, the rigging company, or the TV station that hiredthem both?
When considering this case there are two responsible parties. The antenna rigging company was at fault professionally. The construction method chosen by this company resulted in the collapse. With this stated, the design firm is at fault from an ethical standpoint. The behavior exhibited by the design firm is contrary to the fundamental cannons set forth by the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. An engineer should “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” (NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers). The fact that the design firm feared liability therefore, refusing all forms of assistance shows that the
firm did acknowledge a significant possibility of an accident. It is the obligation of an engineer to at all times strive to serve public interest. Not doing would be considered unethical and a violation of the engineering professional obligations.
1. Which subsection would apply to an electrical engineer signing the design plan for a sewer system?
Section II.1.b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards.
2. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who has knowledge of a violation of the NSPE Ethics Code?
Section II.1.f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
3. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who offers to pay a percentage of his/her contract earnings to the client’s employee who awarded him/her the contract?
Section II.5.b.
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding 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 bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
4. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who, while testifying to a state board, left out on purpose some information that was relevant to the investigation?
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, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
5. Which subsection would apply to an engineer who, while offering advice to his/her clients as to which company to hire fora project, failed to disclose the fact that the engineer had an ownership stake in one of the companies (i.e., a conflict ofinterest)?
Section III.5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.
6. Review the first set of class notes on Professional Ethics where they discuss the Missouri, TX TV Antenna case. In youropinion, who
was more ethically at fault, the antenna design company, the rigging company, or the TV station that hiredthem both?
When considering this case there are two responsible parties. The antenna rigging company was at fault professionally. The construction method chosen by this company resulted in the collapse. With this stated, the design firm is at fault from an ethical standpoint. The behavior exhibited by the design firm is contrary to the fundamental cannons set forth by the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. An engineer should “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” (NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers). The fact that the design firm feared liability therefore, refusing all forms of assistance shows that the
firm did acknowledge a significant possibility of an accident. It is the obligation of an engineer to at all times strive to serve public interest. Not doing would be considered unethical and a violation of the engineering professional obligations.
