Introduction
The ethical issue presented in this case is that the client is only concerned about the budget and project being delayed and is not concerned about the requirements of the room being explosion proof. Further, to solve this situation, Bull tells Dante that he will have the fire code official Bobby get back to him on the matter. Later, Bobby burns calls Dante and tells him that the room is explosion proof and they can continue with the work even without verifying that he has visited the site. Further, Dante is willing to accept the fire official statements and insist that he will not be bothering Bull again. This clearly shows that there is lack of concern for public safety since in case there was an explosion it would be established that proper procedures were not followed.
Rules of Conduct in the case
- Licensees, in the performance of their services for clients, employers, and customers shall be cognizant that their first and foremost responsibility is to public welfare.
- Licensees shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate when their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the life, health, property, or welfare of the public is endangered.
- Licensees shall express a professional opinion publicly only when it is founded upon an adequate knowledge of the facts and a competent evaluation of the subject matter.
- Licensees having knowledge of possible violations of any of these Rules of Professional Conduct shall provide the state board with the information and assistance necessary to make the final determination of such violation.
Rules violated
Dante as a project manager, Bobby Burns the fire official and the town commissioner Bull by ignoring their responsibility to public welfare, violated rule (a) above. Bull’s lack of concern is shown through the arrogance he portrays during the phone conversation with Dante. He feels as if he is being disturbed yet he seems to be having leisure time as portrayed by having a shotgun in his hand. Reilly violated rule (b) by not informing the fire department on an official capacity. Additionally, Dante and Reilly violated rule (d) by not informing the state board of the situation.
Solution
The most appropriate solution to apply in this case would be solution 9. Reilly needs to sit down again with Dante and discuss the fire code official’s “convenient” statement. Both Reilly and Dante have an obligation to report possible violations of rules of professional conduct to the state board. The fire official makes a conclusion via phone without visiting the site in question. Furthermore, having a sit down with Dante will help Reilly discuss issues of public safety and provide a clearer picture of the situation. In this case, the commissioner is not coercing Dante to make a final decision. Furthermore, having a meeting in person with the fire code official and arranging an inspection of the facility may help resolve concerns that they may be having regarding the safety of the facility. Additionally, meeting with the fire official allows the Reilly to express his professional opinion publicly and provide memos from Yvonne, which shows that indeed the facility needs to be explosion proof. Such an investigation may prove to be beneficial in the sense that if well evaluated, the room may be explosion proof and Reilly can proceed with the design work as initially intended. In case the inspection reveals that the room is not explosion proof, Dante and Reilly can develop solutions, which they can forward to the client and insist that that is the only possible approach to designing the room to allow for compliance with state regulations despite the cost implications.
