By Tara Hoke
An historical case from the archives of ASCE’s Committee on Professional Conduct offers a lesson about the ethical risks of public criticism, which is even more relevant in today’s world of rapid-fire communication.
Situation
A state department of transportation embarks on a massive highway project in the state’s largest city. The project is designed to increase mobility and ease congestion in the city by providing a direct connection between two major highways running east and west of the city. Though originally slated for completion in six years, the project is almost immediately bogged down by myriad challenges, running the gamut from land approvals and community opposition to unexpected site complexities and supply shortages. Nearly a decade after work began, the highway connector is still not open for traffic, with the state DOT projecting another 18-24 months for completion.
Frustrated by the continued delays, a city alderman commissions two engineers from a local consulting firm to review the project and identify opportunities to expedite its completion. Upon receipt of the engineers’ report, the alderman announces to news media that the report offers an alternative approach by which two lanes of the highway connector could be opened in as little as two months, easing some of the city’s traffic woes while allowing work on the remaining portion to proceed.
Representatives of the state government are quick to dismiss the recommendation as infeasible, claiming that safety and quality considerations require the connector to remain closed to traffic until all lanes are complete. In response, the alderman argues that the report has already been reviewed by construction engineers working on the project, and that they agree with the report’s conclusions.
The debate sets off a media firestorm that quickly turns political, with the state governor’s office accusing the alderman of chasing publicity at the expense of hardworking state employees, while allies of the alderman accuse the state government of wasting tax dollars through poor planning and lax oversight. A news reporter contacts the chief engineer of the state highway department, who blasts the report and its authors.
The chief engineer scoffs that the report reflects a “fundamental lack of understanding of highway construction” and that the authors “clearly didn’t know what they were talking about.” He questions the alderman’s decision to hire engineers from a soil and foundation engineering firm, rather than one specializing in highway design and construction, and suggests that the engineers had committed unethical conduct by accepting work so far beyond their scope of competence.
Both the chief engineer and the report’s two authors are members of ASCE, and competing ethics complaints are promptly submitted to ASCE’s Committee on Professional Conduct. The first is filed by a senior professional at the report writers’ firm, who claims that the chief engineer has abused his position as a public figure to attack the integrity of two younger and less well-established engineers. The second complaint is submitted by the chief engineer himself, who doubles down on his claim that the two engineers practiced outside their area of competence in preparing their report. He also asserts that the report reflects untrue and unfair criticism of his fellow engineers and colleagues at the state DOT.
Question
Did the actions by any of the engineers in this case violate the ASCE Code of Ethics?
Discussion
At the time this case was considered, Fundamental Canon 5 of the ASCE Code of Ethics read: “Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another’s work.” This same requirement is captured in today’s code by section 5h’s direction that engineers “comment only in a professional manner on the work, professional reputation, and personal character of other engineers.”
In addition, canon 2 at the time of this case directed that “Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence,” with guideline a adding that engineers “undertake to perform engineering assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the technical field of engineering involved.” This same principle can be found in section 4f of the current code.
To resolve the opposing complaints, the CPC first considered the question of whether the report writers had practiced outside their area of competence. At the CPC’s request, the two engineers submitted documentation of their professional background, which — though certainly less impressive than the chief engineer’s own credentials — showed considerable expertise on soil and paving problems, which perspective formed the basis of their report.
Moreover, the CPC felt the engineers’ report struck a careful balance of supporting its conclusions without overstating the authors’ knowledge or degree of certainty. The engineers clearly indicated in the report when assumptions were made or where they relied on preliminary data, and they specifically invited input from other experts to better inform their recommendations. Ultimately, the CPC found no grounds for concluding the report writers had violated canon 2’s strictures on competence in either accepting or preparing the report.
Turning to the matter of canon 5, the CPC likewise did not find that the engineers’ report had falsely or maliciously criticized another professional. The report simply outlined an approach for making the connector suitable for traffic on a shorter timeline; it neither expressed nor implied any fault in the work completed or in the project’s current schedule.
Conversely, the CPC were troubled by the chief engineer’s decision to attack the report writers’ skills and qualifications in the news media, rather than addressing them as an honest difference of opinion between professionals. Also, the complainant alleged that the chief engineer had neither reviewed the report nor had any knowledge of its writers when making his statements to the press, leading the CPC to question whether the chief engineer had any legitimate basis for his critiques of their work.
When pressed by the CPC to identify specifc areas in the report supporting his belief that the younger engineers lacked competence or had unfairly criticized the project, the chief engineer sidestepped the question. He noted instead that the highway engineers in his department had been deeply upset by the report and its subsequent news coverage. He also felt compelled to take action against what he perceived as an all-out attack on his team’s commitment, knowledge, and hard work.
The chief engineer did express regret for his comments in the news media, noting that he had a quick temper and that it was “unfortunate” he had been provoked into airing his frustration in such a public forum.
Though the CPC was not unsympathetic to the chief engineer’s desire to support his staff, they did not believe this motive excused his false and undue criticism of the report writers. The CPC found that the chief engineer’s public comments violated canon 5 of the ASCE Code of Ethics and recommended a formal letter of admonition from the Society.
ASCE’s Executive Committee approved the recommendation, and a letter of censure was sent to the chief engineer. While acknowledging that “a heated disagreement often leads to ill-advised statements and actions,” the letter cautioned that an engineering professional “must not allow emotion to override his professional and ethical obligations.” The letter advised the chief engineer that the Society expected him to exercise better judgment in the future, noting that it was particularly incumbent upon him as a prominent figure and a leader of the engineering community to set a positive example for other professionals, even in cases of disagreement or controversy.
Tara Hoke is ASCE's general counsel and a contributing editor to Civil Engineering.
This article first appeared in the September/October 2025 issue of Civil Engineering as “A Case of Road Rage.”
