This is the May 2026 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials and members of the public.
Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.
Your opinion has been registered for the May 2026 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on May 26.
Your opinion has been registered for the May 2026 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on May 26.
A Review of the Facts
A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E. The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position. The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer Ted, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. Engineer Ted accepted the position.
The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
Was it ethical for Engineer Ted to accept the position of county surveyor?
Here is the result of our survey of your peers:
Applicable NSPE Code References:
Code II.2: Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
Code II.2.a: Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
Code II.2.b: Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.
Code II.2.c: Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.”
Discussion
The Board notes that its evaluation of the facts of this case is limited to an interpretation of the NSPE Code of Ethics and in no way constitutes an interpretation of any state engineering or surveying registration law in recognition of the great disparity in state registration laws and rules of professional conduct.
The Code provisions under consideration in the case have been interpreted in the past by this Board in the context of consulting engineering services and not in the context of an employment relationship.
Obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship. In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained. For example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code the firm should retain individuals with that expertise. Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently.
However, in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county. We do not see any way in which Engineer Ted could be in accordance with Code II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor. It may seem plausible that Code II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer Ted could perform the job as county surveyor.
While it is true that Engineer Ted meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law. For example, it may be legal for an engineer to exercise his First Amendment rights by making strong and critical statements with regard to another individual or with respect to a particular public policy issue; however, it is an entirely different question as to whether such conduct would be ethical under those circumstances. We are of the view that the same reasoning would apply to this particular case.
Because of the absence of a case relating to the instant facts, we must look to the Code of Ethics and apply its language to the facts at hand. In Code II.2, the introductory section makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence. We do not think it would be consistent with the Code provision for Engineer Ted to act as a county surveyor when his expertise is limited to the field of chemical engineering. Code II.2a. states that the engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. Again, the position that Engineer Ted is accepting is in an area in which he possesses no apparent expertise. Under the facts of this case, the job responsibilities of the county surveyor do not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents; however, the job responsibilities do include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements. Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
It could be stated that Engineer Ted’s responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals, and that Engineer Ted’s role would be to oversee those documents and reports. We are convinced that neither is this the intent of the Code provisions nor is this what is commonly understood to be the proper oversight role of a county surveyor.
First, Code II.2.c. must be read in the context of the other provisions that precede it and that relate to the ethical requirement that one should not perform services in areas where one lacks competence. Second, at a bare minimum, we think that one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position. We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
It was unethical for Engineer Ted to accept the position as county surveyor.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
F. Wendell Beard, P.E. Robert J. Haefeli, P.E. Ernest C. James, P.E. Robert W. Jarvis, P.E. James L. Polk, P.E. Everett S. Thompson, P.E. J. Kent Roberts, P.E., chairman
Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
1431 Graham Drive, Suite 265
support@noonpi.com
Greetings,
First, we must take note that the previous county surveyor was dismissed only because he was not a P.E.; not because of their performance (or lack thereof). This gives us the indication that a layman can do the job just fine, it was just that he lacked the title of P.E.;
Second: Engineer Ted is a P.E., he satisfies the requirements of the local county ordinance; he did not mislead/misinform anybody on his credentials.
Third: The qualifier that he has “experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering” would lead me to the belief that he is qualified in the many aspects of designing and operation chemical plants and may very well have served as the project manager for plant construction. We cannot even dismiss the possibility that he has experience in highway improvement as a chemical plant is only as good as the infrastructure (e.g. roads, utilities) leading to it.
Fourthly: We have to accept the reality that an “educational background” isn’t a monolith, one’s knowledge can bridge into a variety of niches. We cannot necessarily conclude he has no knowledge of geometry, nor surveying, deciphering reports, nor the basics of highway design.
In conclusion: their was no claim that “Ted, P.E.” was unqualified, nor that he was operating outside his proficiencies; just that his primary field of expertise is chemical engineering (of which could involve surveying reports and necessarily incorporate some element of highway improvement projects).
Unless other facts are known: Ted, P.E. was not unethical to accept the position.
May this be of Good Help;
⚜ Kenny Lemens, P.E. ᵂᴵ
I do not see a problem with Ted filing the position. He is a P.E. The background story doesn’t say what other qualifications are needed. I think the story points more to the shortcomings of the county, rather than an ethical dilemma for Ted. I’m not sure if the County even knows what they want. They want someone to oversee highway improvement projects ( Civil Engineer). P.E.) and survey reports (RLS). The County needs to rethink the position(s) they want to fill and duties required. Not sure what “oversight” means in this story,
I’m in NY state and the PE and Land Surveyor licenses are 2 separate things. Why wouldn’t they want a licensed surveyor for this? In any case, a chemical engineer with no civil construction experience should not be in that job as I can’t imagine they would have any idea what they were looking at.
I voted “Not Ethical” for the reasons stated in Code II.2 and II.2.a. Code II.2.c seems that it could possibly nullify II.2.b, depending on the organizational structure. I somewhat agree with Kenny’s arguments. Rarely do the Ethical Dilemma cases provide a complete story, which leads one to make a “Yes or No” decision based on some assumptions of facts not in evidence. Specifically, we don’t know the complete requirements for the position. If it is true that Ted’s only experience is in chemical engineering, he probably should even have applied for the position, hence my vote. I would fault the commissioners for posting a position without additional requirements or appointing a person based solely on having a PE. On the other hand, the brief review of the facts seems to imply that the position of County Surveyor is supervisory in nature. An experienced PE, even with experience not directly related to the title of the position, might make an excellent supervisor, possibly in line with Code II.2.c. Bottom line: we need more facts.
a PE is not a Land Surveyor.and a land surveyor is not a PE; they are different diciplines
Why in the world would the County appoint engineer Ted in the first place? He is certainly acting unethically by taking this position. This is based on the facts as presented. The previous appointee probably was qualified except for the fact that he was not a P.E. Kenny and Pat seem to be basing their opinions on a lot of “what ifs”. We can’t go by this. And the entire process smacks of political patronage(another “what if”).
Would you have a podiatrist perform a triple bypass heart surgery? Both are doctors, both work on the human body. The mental gymnastics that people are doing to make this seem ethical just amazes me.