Ethics Exam - Texas Board Of Professional Engineers Website
Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics ExaminationBased on the Texas Engineering Practice Act and Board RulesThere are two ways to take this exam:1. Download and fill out answer sheet EB-01 as you take this exam. You will also need to download orrefer to a copy of the Texas Engineering Practice Act and Board Rules. These documents are available 2. Take the exam online. The exam, answer sheet and the Texas Engineering Practice Act and BoardRules are all available at: http://engineers.texas.gov/ethics exam login.phpAuthority and Scope: In June 2003, The Texas Engineering Practice Act (Act) was re-codified into theOccupations Code and can now be found under Title 6, Chapter 1001. The Act & board rules govern thepractice of engineering in Texas and, among other things, make it a professional and ethical requirement forengineers to practice “ in conformance with standards, laws, codes, and rules and regulations applicable toengineering.” The Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (hereafter, “the Board”)consists of five licensed engineers, three public members and one registered land surveyorappointed by the governor.This Board administers the Texas Engineering Practice Act, ProfessionalLand Surveying Act & board rules on behalf of the citizens of Texas. The Board requires this ProfessionalConduct and Ethics Examination to help ensure that applicants for an engineering license inTexas have studied their responsibilities – ethical, professional, and legal – and that applicants are awarethat guidance is available on these matters.The objectives of this examination are to:1. Ensure that an applicant is familiar with the professional practice provisions of the Act and board rules;2. Promote the Act and board rules as a resource when confronted with professional conduct and ethicaldecisions;3. Introduce an applicant to typical ethical and professional practice issues; and4. Raise awareness that, when necessary, the Board serves as a disciplinary body through its complianceand enforcement powers.Act and Board Rules: In accordance with these objectives, you will need to refer to a current copy of theAct & board rules as you take the examination, which may be found in electronic copy on the Board’s websiteat http://engineers.texas.gov/downloads.htm. A complete version of the existing law and rules is on the site.The Texas Engineering Practice Act, as Chapter 1001 is commonly called, was first enacted in 1937 and isamended periodically. The Act contains provisions prescribed by the Texas Legislature to govern the practiceof engineering in Texas and protect the public health, safety and welfare in matters related to the practice ofengineering. The section of the Act are denoted §1001.XXXX”. The board rules, under Title 22, Chapters 131139 of the Texas Administrative Code, are established by the Board to further clarify and prescribe proceduresfor complying with the Act and are denoted “§13X.YY”. (Example: §137.55)Examination Format and Responses: You will be asked to consider a series of typical professionalconduct and ethics scenarios that may have actually occurred in engineering practice in Texas. Following eachscenario, you will be asked one or more questions. Based on the scenario and your review of the Act andboard rules, chose the best answer for each of the following questions. Please read each question carefully. Itis important to understand each participants’ role in the scenario and if a rule is applicable to that participant.The exam is open book so you may review and study the rules as you proceed. You must answer at least 23questions (92%) correctly to satisfy the Board requirements of review of the law and rules through thisProfessional Conduct and Ethics Examination. If you are unsuccessful in passing the exam on the first attempt,you will have an opportunity to take the exam again.P01/revised 11/19"Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics Examination”-- Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsVersion XIII-- Page 1 of 9
Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics ExaminationScenario 1Direct Supervision and Sealing of Engineering WorkBrian is a graduate engineer and has passed theFE exam but is not yet licensed. He is employedby a small engineering firm, and works with Jim,a licensed professional engineer and owner ofthe company. The firm is retained to do thestructural design of a new rural public school.The project is assigned to Brian.After completing his preliminary calculations forthe structure, Brian does a computer analysis ofsome of the more complex aspects of thedesign. This computer analysis shows Brian’shand calculations are essentially correct.Although Brian feels he is quite thorough andconscientious, he notices that Jim is rarely in theoffice, provides little or no supervision, andnever checks Brian’s work before sealing andsubmitting the plans and specifications to theclient for the bidding and construction phases.Brian wonders if Jim is in conformance with theAct and board rules and decides to discuss thematter with him.Question 1. The board rule that most clearlyaddresses sealing requirements 7.63(c)(1)§137.63(b)(2)After talking with Brian, Jim agrees that heneeds to review the design. He studies it indetail, noting a few minor errors in the windloading that Brian used, but finds nothing thatwould require changes in the design whenconstructed at that location.Brian appreciates the feedback and becomesmore comfortable in his job. Then Brian learnsthat Jim has given the design plans andspecifications to his brother, Christopher, aconstruction contractor, not a licensed engineer.Rather than hire an engineer, Christopherincorporates the design documents into a designbuild proposal for a like-sized (small) school. Jim isaware of this and does not object.Question 2. Which board rule best relates to Jimknowingly allowing Christopher to use his design 37.55(b)§137.65(a)§137.33(f)Question 3. Which section of the Act or boardrule relates to Christopher’s actions?A)B)C)D)E)§ 137.59(a)§ 137.65§ 139.13§ 1001.004§ 139.17In part due to the competitive advantage affordedby using an existing set of drawings, Christopher’scompany wins the design-build contract for theschool. Christopher studied mechanicalengineering in college and designs the mechanicalsystems for the school. He knows he needs anengineer’s seal on the drawings before he can geta permit to start construction. He has a goodfriend, David, who is a mechanical engineerlicensed in Texas, so Christopher asks David to sealthe drawings.David obtains a digital copy of Christopher’sdrawings, carefully reviews each sheet, adds thetitle block and other administrative designations,and affixes his engineer’s seal to the drawings.P01/revised 11/19"Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics Examination”-- Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsVersion XIII-- Page 2 of 9
David’s act of sealing Christopher’s designdrawings can be evaluated based on definitionsin §131.81 of Act and board rules, in particular,“direct supervision,” “responsible charge,” and“responsible supervision.”Question 4. Does David meet therequirements of direct supervision in as definedin §131.81 of the board rules?A) YesB) NoSealing work not performed under an engineer’sdirect supervision is commonly termed “planstamping.” Violations of the Act or any rule orregulation of the Board is sufficient cause for theBoard to suspend or revoke an engineer’slicense, to issue a formal or informal reprimand,or to issue administrative fines.Question 5. What Section of the Act allows theBoard to discipline a license 1001.407§1001.451Question 6. Assume that David is found to havesealed work not performed under his directsupervision, what would be the recommendedsanction for this violation based on the table in§139.35(b)?A)B)C)D)E)Reprimand/ 1,500 fine2 year suspension/ 4,000 fine3 year suspension/ 5,000 fineRevocation/ 5,000 fine1 year suspension/ 750 fineScenario 2“Why Licensure?”Trish is an unlicensed software engineer and haswondered why licensing of engineers isimportant.Her friend José, a licensed engineer, explainsthat the licensing process was established bythe Texas Legislature after a tragic explosion ofa school in New London, Texas in 1937, inwhich more than 200 children and teacherswere killed.José elaborates that the Law states that theprivilege of practicing engineering is entrustedonly to those persons duly licensed, this in orderto protect the health, safety and welfare of thepublic.José gives Trish a copy of the Act and boardrules for reference. Although Trish works for anindustry that is “exempt” from the requirementof licensure, she learns that if she ever offers orprovides engineering services outside hercompany, she will be required to be licensed.Question 7. Which Section of the Texas Actwould exempt an engineering employee workingsolely for a manufacturing firm from theengineering licensure provisions of the Act?A) §1001.057B) §1001.056C) §1001.060D) §1001.058E) §1001.055Through further inquiry, Trish learns that shecannot advance to the top administrative positionsof her company unless she has an engineeringlicense. She informs the corporate engineeringdirector of her interest in licensure, and heencourages her to pursue it.After studying the Act and board rules, Trish learnsthat the licensure process requires, among otherthings, documentation of her engineeringexperience and suitable engineering references.But this causes Trish to be concerned about aprevious employment situation which she left dueto difficult personal reasons not related to hertechnical abilities.P01/revised 11/19"Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics Examination”-- Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsVersion XIII-- Page 3 of 9
Although she knows she is technicallycompetent and is a talented engineer, Trish isfairly certain that her former supervisor,Quentin, a licensed engineer, holds a grudgeagainst her and will not give her a favorablereference because of the difficult circumstancessurrounding her departure. Nevertheless, Trishdecides to ask Quentin to verify this portion ofher engineering experience in her applicationsince he was her engineering supervisor.Question 8. Which Section in the Act or whichboard rules should protect Trish from a retaliatoryaction from her former c)§137.63(c)(2)§137.37Scenario 3Competitive Bidding, Political Contributions, and MarketingRachelle, a licensed engineer and corporateofficer in her engineering firm, has been veryinvolved in community affairs over her entireprofessional career, and is supportive of politicalcandidates who represent what she believes tobe better government.A local county official, Phillip, has gained acclaimby seeking better recreational facilities for theeconomically disadvantaged persons of hiscounty. Phillip sends Rachelle a Request forProposal (RFP) which requests a bid for ahydrology study associated with a new phase ofdevelopment in a low-lying park area.The RFP emphasizes that County funds arelimited, that Phillip intends that the project helpas many disadvantaged persons as possible, andthat the fee will be considered in selection of theengineer.While Rachelle is sympathetic with Phillip’saspirations to help the disadvantaged, sheresponds to the RFP with a letter stating thatcompetitive bidding for engineering services inthe public sector is prohibited by law under theProfessional Services Procurement Act (PSPA).She reminded Phillip that, according to theTexas board rules, an engineer can besanctioned for bidding engineering services onpublic works.Question 9. Which Section of the Act or boardrule most clearly directs an engineer on thematter of competitive bidding for public work witha governmental entity or their 1.407§137.57(a)§137.53(a)Question 10. Do the Act or board rules prohibitcompetitive bidding for engineering services in theprivate sector?A) YesB) NoRachelle’s firm opens a new branch office in a citywhere several politicians ask for significant supportand, in some instances, it appears that“inducements” are necessary to be awardedengineering work. Despite her inclination tocontribute financially to worthy candidates, thevenal demeanor of these local politicians concernsRachelle.Question 11. Which board rule gives guidance toengineers on the matter of §137.57(d)§137.63(c)(4)§137.63(c)(5)Rachelle decides to continue her tradition ofcontributing to individual candidates and to theengineering political action committee. She isP01/revised 11/19"Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics Examination”-- Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsVersion XIII-- Page 4 of 9
satisfied that she is doing so to promote bettergovernment and is not contributing amountsthat would be construed as “buying” work.Later, Rachelle’s firm has the opportunity tosubmit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) on avery large, high-profile transportation project inthe city. The city will give preference for “local”talent.Her business development team leader, Pearce,assembles the company’s experience record andprepares project-specific résumés for eachmember of the project team for inclusion in theSOQ. A fierce competitor, Pearce drafts theSOQ, embellishing (actually, overstating) thefirm’s “local” capability to perform theengineering services for the City. Among otherthings, the SOQ attributes key expertise neededfor the proposed transportation project to asenior engineer but that engineer works in anout-of-state branch of Rachelle’s firm. Pearceincludes him in the SOQ, but fails to mention heis not “local.”While reviewing the final draft of the SOQ, justprior to submittal, Rachelle notices theseembellishments. Although it is not likely thatany of the SOQ reviewers (City officials) will pickup on how Pearce has “embellished” her firm’squalifications, this troubles Rachelle.In particular, Rachelle wonders whether it isdeceiving to represent her firm in the way the SOQdescribes its capabilities and experience.Question 12. Which Section of the Act or whichboard rule most clearly directs Rachelle and herfirm regarding the representations in the (b)§137.63(b)(3)Rachelle also notices that the Texas Act gives theBoard authority to levy a fine for makingmisleading statements prohibited by Texas boardrule §137.57(b).Question 13. What is the suggested sanction formaking a fraudulent statement ormisrepresentation according to rule §139.35(b)?A)B)C)D)E)1 year suspension/ 750 fine2 year suspension/ 4,000 fine3 year suspension/ 5,000 fineRevocation/ 5,000 fineBoard’s discretionScenario 4Practice in Accordance with Accepted Engineering Practices and StandardsVan Zandt, a retired petroleum engineer,relocates to a major metropolitan area. After atime, Van Zandt decides he can put hisengineering skills to use by working as a soleproprietor engineer, doing part-time consultingon residential type construction issues.As part of a routine inspection, Van Zandt issues aletter, bearing his Texas engineer’s seal, that statesand certifies that foundation repairs for a residenceare in conformance with industry standards.He believes that if he mastered the intricacies ofa refinery that he is qualified to consult forresidential construction.However, a subsequent engineering inspection byanother engineer determined that the foundationrepairs did not meet city codes or industrystandards and that engineer filed a complaintagainst Van Zandt.The work keeps him busy, the projects are quickand simple, paperwork is minimal, and themoney is good. Thus Van Zandt soon finds himdoing a brisk business, but then he hits a run ofbad luck.The Board investigated the complaint and foundthat Van Zandt did not support his opinions and,since the letter contained false, deceitful and/ormisleading information, Van Zandt was not actingas a faithful agent for his client.P01/revised 11/19"Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics Examination”-- Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsVersion XIII-- Page 5 of 9
Question 14. Where in the Act or board rulescan Van Zandt find the specific mandatepertaining to his responsibility to be a faithfulagent for his client?A)B)C)D)E)§1001.103§137.55(b)§137.57(a) and (b)§137.63(a)§137.63(b)(4)Some time later, Van Zandt testifies as anexpert witness in a lawsuit. He makes thefollowing statements under oath based on hisown engineering judgment: The contact of a pier to a beam under thewest wall foundation of the client’s retailstore was reduced by only 10%, andA slab surface 17 inches out of level over170 feet would be “within tolerance.”Evidence discovered by another engineershowed the actual reduction in pier-to-beamcontact was 82%, not 90%, and raised doubtsabout Van Zandt’s opinion regarding thelevelness of the slab surface.Furthermore, the second engineer’s reportcontained significant evidence in photos,graphics, and analytical calculations, andshowed that Van Zandt’s first statement wasinaccurate and the second statement was bothinaccurate and misleading.Van Zandt’s “quick and dirty” approach did notinclude adequate modeling, calculations, oranalysis and thus afforded no basis for hisstatements at the time of his testimony.The court determined that providing suchtestimony without fully disclosing the basis andrationale for his opinion was contrary togenerally accepted scientific and engineeringstandards and principles, again putting VanZandt before the Board.Question 15. Which Section of the Act orboard rules most clearly directs an engineerregarding his or her responsibilities when givingexpert testimony?A) §1001.213B) §1001.004C) §137.59(c)D) §137.63(b)(4)E) §137.61(b)Question 16. When approached with disciplinaryaction, Van Zandt claimed that he was not subjectto such actions per the expert witness exemption inthe Act. In reviewing §1001.004(e), is this true?A) YesB) NoVan Zandt’s ultimate downfall was related toanother project, in which he wrote a letter, with hisTexas professional engineer seal affixed, to thepotential buyer of a home outside the city limitsregarding his inspection of the septic system. VanZandt stated that the septic system wasconstructed in accordance with the rules existing atthat time and he certified that the septic systemwas functioning adequately.But a professional sanitarian retained by the realtorinspected the same septic system the followingweek and provided a written report, in which hestated that the system appeared to be “nonstandard.” It was not constructed in accordancewith state regulations and, in fact, constituted ahealth hazard with raw sewage exposed to theatmosphere through a non-sealable lid.Subsequently, a county official inspected the samesystem and provided a written report to theresidents indicating that the system could not bepermitted and was illegally discharging sewage.The Board deemed Van Zandt incompetent topractice in this area. He was also found grosslynegligent, in part because he failed to identify apotentially dangerous sewage disposal situationthat could potentially harm the public.Question 17. Which Section of the Act or boardrules determines gross negligence by an engineeris a 81(16)§131.81(15)§137.63(c)(2)P01/revised 11/19"Texas Engineering Professional Conduct and Ethics Examination”-- Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsVersion XIII-- Page 6 of 9
Scenario 5Conflict of InterestGeorge is a graduate mechanical engineer, andhaving passed the FE exam during his senioryear in college, he now works as an Engi
Act and board rules and decides to discuss the matter with him. Question 1. The board rule that most clearly addresses sealing requirements is: A) §137.55(a) B) §137.59(a) C) §137.33(b) D) §137.63(c)(1) E) §137.63(b)(2) After talking with Brian, Jim ag
Past exam papers from June 2019 GRADE 8 1. Afrikaans P2 Exam and Memo 2. Afrikaans P3 Exam 3. Creative Arts - Drama Exam 4. Creative Arts - Visual Arts Exam 5. English P1 Exam 6. English P3 Exam 7. EMS P1 Exam and Memo 8. EMS P2 Exam and Memo 9. Life Orientation Exam 10. Math P1 Exam 11. Social Science P1 Exam and Memo 12.
Sampling for the Ethics in Social Research study The Ethics in Social Research fieldwork 1.3 Structure of the report 2. TALKING ABOUT ETHICS 14 2.1 The approach taken in the study 2.2 Participants' early thoughts about ethics 2.2.1 Initial definitions of ethics 2.2.2 Ethics as applied to research 2.3 Mapping ethics through experiences of .
GRADE 9 1. Afrikaans P2 Exam and Memo 2. Afrikaans P3 Exam 3. Creative Arts: Practical 4. Creative Arts: Theory 5. English P1 Exam 6. English P2 Exam 7. English P3 Exam 8. Geography Exam 9. Life Orientation Exam 10. MathP1 Exam 11. Math P2 Exam 12. Physical Science: Natural Science Exam 13. Social Science: History 14. Technology Theory Exam
Final Exam Answers just a click away ECO 372 Final Exam ECO 561 Final Exam FIN 571 Final Exam FIN 571 Connect Problems FIN 575 Final Exam LAW 421 Final Exam ACC 291 Final Exam . LDR 531 Final Exam MKT 571 Final Exam QNT 561 Final Exam OPS 571
"usiness ethics" versus "ethics": a false dichotomy "usiness decisions versus ethics" Business ethics frequently frames things out, including ethics Framing everything in terms of the "bottom line" Safety, quality, honesty are outside consideration. There is no time for ethics.
Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics defines the standards and the procedures by which the Ethics Committee operates.! More broadly, the Code of Ethics is designed to give AAPM Members an ethical compass to guide the conduct of their professional affairs.! TG-109! Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics in its current form was approved in
Texas Math Course 1 (Grade 6) Texas Math Course 2 (Grade 7) Texas Math Course 3 (Grade 8) Texas Grade 6 iScience Texas Grade 7 iScience Texas Grade 8 iScience Texas Biology Texas Chemistry Texas Integrated Physics and Chemistry Texas Physics MHEtexas.com MK14M03416
Missouri City, Texas San Antonio City San Antonio, Texas San Antonio Surf Kyle, Texas SG1 Soccer Club Katy, Texas Sting Austin Austin, Texas Sting Corpus Corpus Christi, Texas Sting San Antonio San Antonio, Texas TEXAS Ajax SC New Braunfels, Texas Alamo City SC San Antonio, Texas Albion Hurr
