Trust

By their very nature ethical discussions are difficult. This is especially true when the discussion seems to be centered on issues and ideas that appear to be critical or judgmental of “me, my behavior, or my ideas.” On the other hand, it is my belief that ethical ideas are clarified and behavior shaped through reasoned, rational, non-judgmental discussions with others. I do not believe that ethical ideas and behavior can be learned in isolation.

I explain this belief in the hope that each person reading this essay will find it stimulating as food for thought and worthy of discussion with their colleagues, friends, and family. It has been difficult to put this message into words and anyone reading it should not look upon it as criticism or judgment of others or their actions. To criticize or judge the actions of others is not my place, nor is it my desire. In this essay I have attempted to truthfully describe observations that I have made and raise questions for the reader to ponder, discuss and, if appropriate for him/her, act upon. If my words become cause for anger or offense I have failed in my objective because reasoned, rational discussion, and growth cannot take place when one is threatened or angry. In that case, I apologize.

Most people reading this essay, surely all of the ASCE members reading this essay, have heard, or uttered, time and again over the past $10\text{years}$ , the lament that the public does not know what civil engineers do, does not value their work in proportion to the benefits it brings to society and, does not compensate them in proportion to their contribution to the nation’s overall well-being. I cannot understand how a profession can be treated so badly or be so misunderstood by the public they serve when their code of ethics has, as its first canon, the statement “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public . . .” Unless the public they serve simply does not believe that those in the profession either mean what they say or live by the code of conduct they claim. If this description of the public’s behavior is accurate, it seems to me that the public is sending a message that the profession is not hearing, or is choosing to ignore. And the message? I don’t believe you!

Consider this. In 1998 ASCE prepared and released its first Report for America’s Infrastructure. It reported an overall grade of D for the infrastructure and was, to the best of my knowledge and observations, ignored. In 2005 the second report was prepared and issued, and it contained an estimate of $1.6 trillion needed for completion of the necessary improvements. It was received with similar disregard. Indeed, it was reported in ASCE News in February of 2009, that ASCE’s president, D. Wayne Klotz, said:

. . . in more than a decade, the United States has made no significant progress in improving either the condition or performance of our roads, bridges, water systems, or other vital infrastructure.

It was reported in the same article (“ASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card Gives Nation a D, Estimates Cost at $2.2 Trillion”) that:

ASCE released the grades in its 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C. . . . Although the overall grade given by the report card—a D—is the same that conferred four years ago, the projected cost of repairing the nation’s infrastructure has grown to a daunting $2.2 trillion over the next five years.

The same article goes on to say, in a statement from Patrick Natale, ASCE executive director, that:

“. . . we made an unprecedented decision to release the report card components of our 2009 report card two months ahead of schedule.” At press time President Obama was calling on Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1, S.1), a bill that would allocate as much as $98.25 billion toward repairing and revitalizing the nation’s infrastructure.

In the same issue of ASCE News, another article entitled “ASCE Offers Suggestions for Economic Stimulus Plan,” it is reported that:

As a strong supporter of the president’s [Obama] plan, the Society [ASCE] has prepared a document entitled “Principles for Infrastructure Stimulus Investment” and presented it to Obama’s transition team as well as to congressional leaders . . . In an accompanying letter addressed to Obama, D. Wayne Klotz, P.E., D.WRE, F.ASCE, the Society’s president . . . expressed the Society’s support . . . “By adopting and implementing the ASCE principles, Congress can assure the American people that the funds appropriated for infrastructure investment will produce desirable results . . .”

Finally, consider that in the report card there is a section entitled “Raising the Grade: Five Key Solutions.” In that section the first solution put forth is “Increase Federal Leadership in Infrastructure.”

So, who is “the public” referred to in the code of ethics? Is it the $400+$ men and women cloistered in Washington, D.C., or is it the $300+$ million people who live in the nation? And who is warning the people who live in the nation that there is a serious problem looming on the horizon; the civil engineering profession as it honors its code of ethics, or members of Congress who need the public to believe that everything is okay in order to maintain their position in Congress?

Think about this:

Does this sound to you like a profession that “hold(s) paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public?” Or, does this sound to you like a profession that will do what it feels is necessary to maximize its share of all available government funding and handouts in order to keep its employees paid and its doors open? Or, does this sound simply like a group of technologically trained servants and advisors of the politically powerful?

The front page of ASCE News, March 2009, carries a headline “Society’s Efforts Help Stimulus Bill Become Law.” In that article it is said:

As a result of its early release, the Society’s infrastructure assessment captured the attention of the media and of the White House…Obama himself cited the 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure in outlining his $3.55 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2010 . . . The bill allocates funds to nearly all of the categories listed in ASCE’s report. The largest portion will go to energy and the environment, which are to receive $98.234 billion.

The article goes on to report a loose breakdown of the funding proposed. A careful review of the items funded and the amounts allocated appear to bear little resemblance to the areas receiving grades D and D- in the report card. And, as with the article cited above, this is a report of how the civil engineering profession is providing for the needs of the political leaders in Washington, not on how it is serving the needs of the nation’s people.

In this context it is easy to understand why:

The stimulus package recently passed into law is, with respect to the nation’s looming infrastructure, eyewash. It is, with respect to the infrastructure that continues to deteriorate and under-serve, a way for political leaders, with the consent and support of the civil engineering profession, to assure the people that, in the future, bridges won’t fall, roads won’t deteriorate, rivers and lakes won’t be polluted, and drinking water will be safe, because we have done the right thing. We understand the problem and are taking care of it.

The people are not fools. The public will not be mocked. The public sees our presence and participation in the work of the political leaders; it sees our stamp of assurance and support of programs that continue to overpromise and under-perform and it draws the natural conclusion that “Engineers hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, as long as they are comfortable, well fed, and it doesn’t cost them too much.”

When the profession begins to serve the public, not the political leadership; when the public recognizes the need and the wisdom of turning to a learned professional instead of being told the law requires that “you get a drawing or a report with a stamp on it”; when the public perceives that the civil engineer is its friend and guardian; then, and only then, will the profession be granted the gift of the public’s trust. But, until then, the civil engineer will increasingly become a commodity: a necessary cost that is to be minimized, a burden to the public that is to be avoided whenever possible.

History tells me that there was a time when the public did willingly turn to the civil engineering profession for assistance and advice. There was a time when those in the profession were seen as learned and their advice was honored. There was a time when this profession enjoyed the public’s trust. And, over time, this profession can re-establish this position of honor and trust if it chooses to re-establish its focus on the men and women who make up the public that we claim to serve.

In order for the public to trust us as professional advisors it must first believe we are interested in its well-being and that we are speaking the unspoiled, unstretched, reasoned and rational truth. Political leaders and powerbrokers will not, indeed in the current culture they cannot, deliver this message to the public.

It seems ironic that if our profession is incapable of delivering this message effectively, it will be unable to “hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public.” The public won’t allow it!

Michael Garrett has more than $\mathbf{30}\mathbf{\text{years}}$ experience in the design and construction fields. He is a project structural engineer for URS Corporation in Buffalo, New York, and is presently licensed to practice in several states. He can be reached via e-mail at Mike. [email protected].