Use of Slogans in Political Campaigns - Case No. 98-6
Facts:
- Engineer A, a prominent professional engineer in her
community, decides to run for a political office in Smith
County and uses as her slogan the following: "Engineer A:
Engineering A Better Smith County."
- Engineer B, a sole practitioner, markets himself as "The
Everything Engineer" in advertising slogans and sales
promotions.
Questions:
- Was it ethical for Engineer A to use the slogan "Engineer
A: Engineering A Better Smith County" when running for
political office?
- Was it ethical for Engineer B to market himself as "The
Everything Engineer" in advertising slogans and sales
promotions?
References:
- Section II.5.a. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not
falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of
their, or their associates' qualifications. They shall not
misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the
subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other
presentations incident to the solicitation of employment
shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers,
employees, associates, joint venturers or past
accomplishments.
- Section III.1. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall be
guided in all their relations by the highest standards of
honesty and integrity.
- Section III.1.f. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not
promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and
integrity of the profession.
- Section III.2.a. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall seek
opportunities to participate in civic affairs; career
guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the
safety, health and well-being of their community.
- Section III.3.a. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall avoid
the use of statements containing a material
mis-representation of fact or omitting a material fact.
Discussion:
The facts in the case presented combine several sections of
the NSPE Code of Ethics: the 'engineers obligation to
participate and be a constructive force in public affairs (See
Code Section III.2.a.), and the engineers' obligation to avoid
statements that are misleading, deceptive, and causing dishonor
on the engineering profession (See Code Sections II.5.a.,
III.1., III.1.f., and III.3.a.).
The Board of Ethical Review has evaluated cases involving
the political candidacy of engineers on at least two occasions.
In BER Case 74-10, the Board considered a case involving
engineer Richard Roe, a partner in an engineering firm. Roe
became a candidate for nomination to the state senate in a
primary election and, in support of his candidacy, issued a
statement on the firm stationary. The name of the firm on the
letterhead was "Richard Roe Associates". The letterhead
contained the usual type of listing of partners, their society
affiliations and addresses and telephone number. In the basic
statement, Roe recites his membership in several professional
societies and in a fraternal order, his previous involvement in
political activities, and experience in planning and design of
various types of public works, including reference to one
particular major project. The statement alluded to his close
contact with government and the spending of public funds. The
announcement also contained the following statement: "He feels
that his training and experience will be very helpful in
unraveling some of the glaring inequities in state laws
relating to employment of professional services...There are
more iniquities in the laws than most realize." The Board
determined that the use of the engineering firm stationary in
the manner indicated to promote the political candidacy of a
professional engineer was not ethically permissible, but that
an engineer could utilize his professional affiliations,
background, and experience in promoting his political candidacy
in regular political material. Citing earlier cases, the Board
noted that it is both ethical and desirable that professional
engineers be involved in political causes and be candidates for
public office (See BER Case 61-1). In seeking public office, an
engineer may properly utilize his engineering competence and
background (See BER Case 61-1).
A subsequent case involved engineer Roe in which Roe, who
had previously been the mayor of a town and decided to run
again, published a political advertisement in a local newspaper
urging voters to vote for Roe and against Roe's opponent, the
current mayor. The advertisement charged that many thousands of
tax dollars had been spent on engineering and consulting fees
by the current mayor and that during Roe's term only a fraction
of that amount had been spent on design and consulting fees.
The Board concluded that the political advertisement utilized
by Roe was not ethically permissible.
Turning to the facts of this particular case, the Board
believes that engineers who are involved in public affairs have
a special obligation to promote the public's knowledge and
understanding of engineering and not engage in gimmickry and
slick sloganeering or promotions at the expense or dignity of
the engineering profession. Engineers who run for public office
should make special efforts to provide the public - a public
which in survey after survey demonstrate an almost complete
lack of any meaningful understanding of the engineering
profession - with a fuller understanding and appreciation of
the accomplishments of engineers to society.
While the Board can recognize that some might object to the
use of the term "engineering" in the first context because it
might be viewed as a gimmick and cause the public to be mislead
or deceived in the context in which it is used, the Board is
not of the opinion that the use of the term goes beyond the
bounds of ethics and therefore considers Engineer A's actions
ethical. Nevertheless, the Board is of the view that a more
preferable approach for Engineer A would have been to avoid the
use of the slogan and to explain in great detail how her skills
as an engineer would be of benefit to the public in her role as
a public official. The Board believes that such an approach
would both serve the interests of public discourse on the
benefits of engineering skill and judgment among publicly
elected officials and would raise the stature and the image of
the engineering profession among members of the public. The
Board has repeatedly encouraged engineers to become more active
in civic affairs, and engineers have an obligation to do so in
a professional and dignified manner.
With regard to Engineer B's use of the reference "everything
engineer" in advertising slogans to promote his engineering
practice, the Board is troubled by this type of promotional
activity. For one engineer to state or imply that the engineer
can perform all areas of engineering, all disciplines of
engineering, in all contexts, is misleading and deceptive.
While most state engineering licensure laws do not restrict an
engineer's practice to one specific discipline and the engineer
may practice in more than one area of competency, for an
engineer to imply, in a wholly unrestricted manner, competency
and qualifications in virtually all areas of engineering
practice is beyond the realm of reason. While NSPE has long
advocated the preservation of general licensing laws to permit
the greatest level of flexibility for individual practitioners,
particularly in multidisciplinary practice areas, all
professional and technical groups should be fundamentally
concerned when practitioners abuse basic professional judgment
in this manner. As the Board of Ethical Review noted in BER
Case 94-8, in which a chemical engineer was found to have acted
unethically because he had designed structural footings without
possessing the requisite competence, engineers have an ethical
obligation to perform services only in areas where they possess
educational background and experience or to retain individuals
who possess the necessary educational background and experience
to perform the work in question.
Conclusions:
- It was ethical for Engineer A to use the slogan "Engineer
A: Engineering A Better Smith County" when running for
political office.
- It was not ethical for Engineer B to market himself as
"The Everything Engineer" in advertising slogans and sales
promotions.
Board of Ethical Review
- Lorry T. Bannes, P.E.
- James G. Fuller, P.E.
- Donald L. Hiatte, P.E.
- Joe Paul Jones, P.E.
- Paul E. Pritzker, P.E.
- Richard Simberg, P.E.
- C. Allen Wortley, P.E., Chairman
NOTE:
- The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) considers
ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters
submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public
officials and members of the public. The BER reviews each
case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier
BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not
necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to
or reviewed by the BER.
- Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual
practicing engineers, students and the public. In regard to
the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to
engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships,
sole-proprietorships, government agencies, university
engineering departments, etc.), the specific business form or
type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of
individuals to the NSPE Code. The NSPE Code deals with
professional services -- which services must be performed by
real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement
policies within business structures.
- This opinion is for educational purposes only. It
may be reprinted without further permission, provided that
this statement is included before or after the text of the
case and that appropriate attribution is provided to the
National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical
Review.
- Visit the "Ethics Button" on NSPE's website
(www.nspe.org) and learn how to obtain complete volumes that
include all NSPE Opinions (or call
1-800-417-0348).
1996 NSPE Code of Ethics
This is the version of the code archived in the OEC. An earlier
version may have been used in this case.