CHANGES IN IEEE ARE NEEDED TO CREATE A "SELF-DIRECTED PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY" FORː
From ETHW
ELECTRICAL-ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS, TECHNOLOGISTS, SCIENTISTS, TECHNICIANS, ETC, EDUCATORS, DIRECTORS, MANAGERS, ADMINISTRATORS, STAFF
THIS IS AN “ELDEN IEEE ETHICS ISSUES WHITE PAPER”, PLUS UPDATES, CREATEDː 9-15-23, "LAST UPDATED 02-07-2024. READERS MAY EMAIL COMMENTS TOː w.elden(a)ieee.org
OBITUARY OF DR STEPHEN H. UNGER
DR STEVE UNGER PASSED AWAY ON THE "FOURTH OF JULY, 2023". A PAST PROFESSOR OF COMPUTER ELECTRONICS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, HE DEVOTED 60 YEARS TO IEEE ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM INVOLVED WITH CREATING THE CSIT AND SSIT.
Steven H. Unger, PhD, was "The Father of IEEE Ethics", and my Ethics Mentor for over 65 years. My work herein is dedicated to his memory and the impact his prior work promoting ethics has/will have on the entire Engineering Profession.
### Steve passed on the "4th of JULY, 2023"-RIP ###
READ A SAMPLE OF UNGER'S ACTION WRITINGSː
1. IEEE'S Curtailment of Its Ethics and Ethical Support Activities
a. The Case of the Vanishing Ethics Article
b. The Assault on IEEE Ethics Support
INVITED COMMENTS FROM JUDGE PAUL SPINDEN
“While serving in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, as an ASSISTANT Attorney General for enforcing Professional Engineering Licensing laws, Judge Paul Spinden headed prosecution of the structural engineers held to be responsible for the worst building failure up til then, 1981, in United States history, the collapse of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency atrium walkways on July 17, 1981, in which 114 persons were killed”.
Here, now, as a result, are numerous YouTube local TV news accounts reporting about the collapsing balconies accident, beginning with Judge Paul Spindon discussing the part he played in the prosecuting of the Professional Engineers and others, found, by up to and including a Missouri Appeals Court, each one guilty of failing to exercise their personal Professional responsibilities to lawfully protect the public.
YOU TUBE LINKS REPORTING OF THE HYATT HOTEL ACCIDENT
https://youtu.be/98l3Us8IU-I?si=XnSiLT98JJGa3gHJ
The Following is Quoted from I. Introduction (Judge Paul Spinden, Former Law Professor, )
(1) engineers working under the supervision of a licensed engineer who takes responsibility for the unlicensed engineer’s work; or
(2) engineers employed by public utilities; or
(3) engineers employed by the federal government; or
(4) engineers employed by a state government; and
(5) “in-house” engineers employed by a manufacturing or other business firm (known as the “industrial exemption”).14
The policy underlying these exemptions, especially the industrial exemption, is perplexing. It begs the question of how an engineer’s working for an industrial firm protects the public and makes licensing unnecessary. No state exempts a lawyer or physician from licensure simply because he or she is employed by the government or a corporation. How does a state justify requiring a florist to have a license, no matter where he or she works,15 but does not require an engineer, whose negligence can kill,16 to obtain a license simply because he or she works for an industrial firm?”
As incompatible with protecting the public as the industrial exemption seems to be, the courts have made clear that the states are free to persist in such policies. In such matters as licensing, the states have virtually unfettered discretion. The United States Supreme Court has declared that regulatory licensing is one the government’s strongest powers to be wielded as it deems necessary for protecting society.17
Even if the policy of the exemptions does not violate due process rights, it is difficult to defend as good government. Indeed, the exemptions raise suspicions that their enactment had more to do with politics—protecting the private interests of industrial firms and others—than with good government.18 Unlike any other profession, engineering has always been dominated by large industrial interests, which often have much political power.19 Although engineers provided the genius and ingenuity for America’s industrialization, they did so as employees of business entities and entrepreneurs. Little has changed. As Edwin Layton observed, engineering has always involved an attempt—with mixed success—to blend science and business. “[T]he test of an engineer’s work,” he said, “lies not in the laboratory, but in the marketplace.”20 Engineers’ success has always been tied to industry’s success,21 and today the overwhelming majority of engineers—as many as ninety percent22—work for large manufacturing businesses, exempting them from licensure in states recognizing an industrial exemption.23
This article (Spinden) probes the soundness of the policy underlying the industrial exemption. It concludes that, although emergence of the exemption was a natural consequence of engineering’s close alliance from the very start with big business, the exemption has thwarted engineering’s development as a bona fide profession. It also concludes that only with elimination or a significant reengineering of the exemption can the profession truly expect to attain profession status. Such a rethinking about the exemption will come only with a major change in attitude by engineering practitioners as to what it means to be an engineer."
-End of JUDGE SPINDEN Quotes-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------AUTHOR AND EDITORː----------------
WALTER L. ELDEN PE RET (FL-'96)
GO TO THIS LINK TO VIEW First-Hand: My Growing Up Pre-Engineer Years' -Birth thru High School Historyː
First-Hand: Challenges Walter Elden Faced Supporting IEEE Ethical Behavior and Professionalism - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
This is My IEEE and Industry Engineering Design, Professional and Ethics Experience of 65 Years
IEEE ETHICS HISTORY REPOSITORY - EDITOR EMERITUS; IEHR, 2016-2023
U of Florida; With HONORS, 1958 BEE GRADUATE;
U of Houston, 1962 MSEE,
̈MCC Co-Founding Author, IEEE Member Conduct Committee MCC 1977; Served on the Member Conduct Committee 1996-1998
“Engineer of the Year Award” for Professional Activities, IEEE Orlando Section, 1973-1974
IEEE USA 1998 Award for “Professionalism and Ethics”
IEEE Life Senior Member, 1996;
Founding Editor, IEEE Concerned Ethics Volunteers, CEV; 2017-2022
[w.elden(a)ieee.org]
PREAMBLE (UPDATED 10-04-23)
THE IEEE SINCE 1912 HAS BEEN A "BUSINESS LED INSTITUTE", WHICH HAS KEPT IT FROM BEING A TRUE "PROFESSIONAL IEEE LED SOCIETY", FOR ITS ENGINEERS AND TECHNOLOGY MEMBERS
As a result of the 1912 New York Supreme Court ordered changes in the 1884 founded Engineer Professionals' management of the original AIEE, to enable Business members to begin to serve in that role on its Board of Directors, AIEE was shifted from a Professionals-led to a Business Members-led Institute. It is the opinion of this Editor (whom is not a lawyer) of this "Elden Ethics White Paper" that a major error (?) may have been made in this case.
The Supreme Court back in 1912 may have over-looked that the Plaintiffs in the case were acting with a strong PRO BUSINESS bias as to why they brought the suit in the first place. The National Business Community wanted to somehow halt the rise of State licensed Professional Engineers working in Industry and saw this move as a way to begin curbing it. This point is important, for being AIEE Directors, having brought that suit knowing the desired outcome they hoped for their PRO Business Clients would not benefit the AIEE Founding Engineer Professionals and their movement, would be what they wanted. That is exactly what they wanted; that was, the power they gained in joining with the National Business effort to reduce the independence and legal backing obtained from being State licensed PEs to direct industry. The majority Founding AIEE Professional members would be greatly curbed in their rise with a great loss if the ruling were to go against them, which is exactly what happened.
Given all this, what I just wrote, if correct, would have thus created a violation of the law, governing Association Directors, by the Plaintiff members, in choosing benefits for their Business Members over their AIEE members they were legally obligated to serve first. This possibly was overlooked by the Court in its ruling. Thus, if this reasoning is correct, then a great injustice was done to the then Defendant AIEE Engineering Professionals and likely Society as a whole back in 1912.
A NOTE OF CLARITY HEREː WAS AN IMPORTANT ERROR IN THE CASE MADE OR NOT???
IF THIS TURNS OUT TO BE A CORRECT INTERPRETATION, BY ME A LAYMAN, NOT A LAWYER, THEN AT THE START OF THAT 1912 TRIAL AND NOT AFTER IT HAD BEEN OVER, IT RESULTS IN A VERY LIKELY INCORRECT RULING FAVORING THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THE UNITED STATES, AS A MINIMUM, AS WELL AS HARMING THE SUCCEEDING LOSING PROFESSIONAL DEFENDANTS OVER ALL THOSE YEARS FROM 1912.
I WONDER HOW MANY WERE/WILL STILL BE AFFECTED IF THIS TURNS OUT TO BE AN IMPORTANT SET OF FACTS WHICH COULD TODAY EVEN POSSIBLY AFFECT THAT 1912 DECISION MADE BACK THEN. THAT'S MY 2 CENTS. THAT CASE SHOULD BE LOOKED AT CAREFULLY IF THIS POSSIBLE ERROR IS REVERSABLE TODAY.
................................................................................................................................................................................................
GOING ONː
This presentation presents a discussion and arguments on why its time those 1912 Court changes need to be reviewed and to move to create an independent Professional's-led new "Society of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and Technologists", independent of any business counter organization, post IEEE. Which type is selected might be combined or independent, physically, SUCH AS THE IEEE TECHNICAL STANDARDS ACTING LIKE AN INDEPENDENT SUBSIDIARY OF THE IEEE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- ELDEN'S AUDIO AND TEXT FILES ----------
AUDIO FILE- INTRODUCTION 01Aː 2 CONTRACTURAL TERMS (ETHICS ADVICE AND ETHICAL SUPPORT) EXIST IN THE IEEE CODE OF ETHICS (READ CANONS # 1 AND # 10)
- Audio File
- MP3 Audio
(A1 ARGUMENT THAT A CONTRACT AGREEMENT EXISTS FOR ADVICE AND SUPPORT TO MEMBERS.mp3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEEE CODE OF ETHICS 2 KEY CANONS CREATE A "MUTUAL MEMBER-IEEE CONTRACT OBLIGATION"
CANON # 1. to hold paramount, the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.
CANON # 10. to support colleagues and co-workers in following this code of ethics, to strive to ensure the code is upheld, and to not retaliate against individuals reporting a violation.
•••••••••••••ELDEN’s VIEWPOINT••••••••••••
Here is a point to considerː
Above, CANON 10 clearly states that it applies equally to each of IEEE’s 450 K (plus or minus) Members, especially including and applies to the full elected Members of the Boards of Directors, Executive Officers, Legal Staffs, etc, throughout the 43 years, 1978-2021, when all but the 3 years, 1995-98, only Member Discipline was offered to members; Ethics Advice and Ethics Support were denied to the Members over 40 some years?
That fact strongly implies to me that over each of those years, the Code of Ethics’ CANON # 10 (read above) were violated by those members in “denying Ethics Advice and Ethical Support” to the Members each of those years their vote was not cast to provide them those services”, implied when in 1974 the Constitution was Amended to provide Members Professional Services and incorporated in the Bylaws, and Policies with the establishment of a Member Conduct Committee in February 1978.
(My personal and Professional opinion WLE). Why, then, was Canon # 10 above NOT enforced over those 40 years to provide Ethics Advice and Ethical Support, where, on the other hand, Member Discipline was offered, over the full 43 years, to the Members?????? This should be investigated.
Additionally, why was the 1978 Board of Directors allowed to only offer a Proposed Member Discipline service, when USAB provided proposing Member Discipline, Ethical Advice and Ethical Support services? How did that happen? Shouldn’t that be looked into? (WLE)
Discussionː Relevance of IEEE's Governance Policies to Providing Ethics Advice and Ethical Support
In the following, material is provided of a comprehensive list of governing IEEE Policies, presented in a top down fashion, beginning at the top with its New York, USA Certificate of Incorporation. Most of the listed governance items touch on Member Discipline, Ethical Advice and Ethical Support to one extent of another. However, it seems that the above Member-IEEE contract agreement would take precedence and thus create a binding relationship between the two parties; one or more members and the IEEE as a corporate entity. That is why the above contract agreement was presented first.
AUDIO 1 OF 4 - INTRODUCTION TOPICS ABOUT IEEE ISSUESː Anti-PE Licensing Bias, Engineering a New System/Product, Conflicting PE and Employment Laws, Industry Exemption, Responsible Charge Protecting the Public, Dual Codes of Ethics, Management Mis-Treatment of Professionals, Directors First Legal Responsibility is to Members, Fair Treatment From Conduct Complaint Review Committee, Legal Basis of 40 Out of 43 Years for IEEE to “Not” Provide Ethical Advice and Support But” Did Provide “Member Discipline Service” the Full 43 Years, Several Events to be Investigated, Standards Association Operations, Include International Participation for Regions 7-10, etc.
AUDIO 1 of 4 - INTRODUCTION A1
- Audio File
- MP3 Audio
(INTRODUCTION_AUDIO_A.mp3)
AUDIO 2 OF 4 - INTRODUCTION B21
- Audio File
- MP3 Audio
(INTRODUCTION AUDIO B21.mp3)
AUDIO C31 OF 4 - INTRODUCTION C31
- Audio File
- INTRODUCTION AUDIO C31.mp3 Audio
(INTRODUCTION AUDIO C31.mp3)
AUDIO 4 OF 4 - INTRODUCTION D
- Audio File
- MP3 Audio
(INTRODUCTION AUDIO D.mp3)
A BASELINE OF THE IEEE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/index.html#ieee-governing-documents
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, NAE; AUDIO & TEXT FILES
AUDIO AND TEXTː "Engineering Codes of Ethicsː Legal Protection for Engineers",
by Jeffrey H. Matsuura-is of COUNSEL, ALLIANCE LAW GROUP, TYSON'S CORNER, VIRGINIA
Audio Fileː 001 "Code Protection Audio"
- Audio File
- MP3 Audio
(CODE PROTECTION AUDIO 001.mp3)
TEXT FILE - 01A "Code Protection Text"-
TEXT FILEː https://www.nae.edu/168674/Engineering-Codes-of-Ethics-Legal-Protection-for-Engineers
TEXT FILE - 02A "Ethics in Business - Every Employee’s Character and Behavior Count",
by Chad Holliday (NAE) is chair of Royal Dutch Shell plc and former chair of the US National Academy of Engineering.
TEXT FILEː https://www.nae.edu/168680/Ethics-in-Business-Every-Employees-Character-and-Behavior-Count
TEXT FILE - 03A "Engineering Society Codes of Ethics: A Bird’s-Eye View";
by ARTHUR E. SCHWARTZ IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF FORENSIC ENGINEERS (NAFE), AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS (NSPE).
TEXT FILEː https://www.nae.edu/168676/Engineering-Society-Codes-of-Ethics-A-BirdsEye-View
TEXT FILE - 04A "Protecting Dissent in Organizational Contexts"
by ARTHUR E. SCHWARTZ IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF FORENSIC ENGINEERS (NAFE), AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS (NSPE).
TEXT FILEː https://www.nae.edu/168678/Protecting-Dissent-in-Organizational-Contexts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW OF THIS POSITION PAPER- W. ELDEN
WHEN THE PE STATE LICENSING BOARDS ENACTED THE 1930'S PE INDUSTRY EXEMPTION LAWS, ALONG WITH THE 1912 NY SUPREME COURT AIEE RULING, ALLOWING BUSINESS MEMBERS OF THE AIEE TO BEGIN SERVING ON ITS BOARD, DIRECTING ITS AFFAIRS, AIEE-IEEE ENGINEER & TECHNOLOGIST MEMBERS LOST THEIR INDEPENDENT “PROFESSIONAL” STATUS.
IT NEEDS TO BE RE-INSTATED NOW. THE NEW “1912 PLUS” AIEE BUSINESS DIRECTORS THEN FAVORED INDUSTRY INTERESTS OVER AIEE MEMBER PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS (WAS THAT LAWFUL FOR DIRECTORS TO DO THEN?)
This Position Paper provides my Professional views on IEEE’s leadership over the years, after Business Members gained THEIR PREFERRED NEW Board of Directors controlling power in 1912 from its original Engineer Member Professionals, who founded the AIEE Society initially in 1884. This change came about when industry Executives sued its AIEE Board of Directors In New York to be allowed to become classified as “engineering members” and serve on its Board of Directors, thus winning membership rights to serve on it for the first time.
That act changed the AIEE/IEEE then, and over the years from an Engineer Professionals led Society to one led instead by Business Members, to benefit their outside Industry interests over that of AIEE's founding Engineer Professionals. This resulted in changing AIEE from a Professional led to an Industry Business Leaders focused society.
However, It was not until 1973 did the rank and file members express it was time to change that nature of IEEE, by way of approving the amending of the IEEE’s Constitution by over 83% YES votes, in favor to add Professional Activities, for the first time, into its Constitution.
By that action, the IEEE became empowered for the first time since 1912 to engage once again in Professional Activities. But a majority of IEEE's Board only wanted, since the 1978 creation of the Member Conduct Committee, the MCC, and did limit it to just Member Discipline, in spite of conflicting in the Bylaws since 1978, which approved it to render Member Discipline, Ethics Advice and Ethics Support, to IEEE's full members. While limited in its scope, for the first time, IEEE continued to be, not an “Engineer Led” but one with “Industry Business members” serving on the Board of Directors, thus negating it from being a distinct Professionals’ led Society to one following the members preferences of Industry and Business leading members.
In the subsequent development of an independent IEEE USA, encompassing all of USA (Regions 1-6) members, it is the most professional sub-Organizational Unit of IEEE by dealing with Professional Activities, like Licensure, Registration, and Salary Surveys, plus Government Relations. But as long as it remains under the present IEEE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, with Engineer licensed Professionals exempt from being required to be licensed when serving in “Responsible Charge” of design work, it cannot serve as a 100% independent, self-governing Professional Engineering Society.
This fact was reinforced in the February 22, 2022 announcement by then IEEE President Ray Liu in his Spectrum/Institute column that “the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers was no more and would be known just as the IEEE”. Along with this came his proclaiming an increasing IEEE members’ emphasis of Technologists members exceeding Engineers for the first time. Even in its latest Tag Line “Advancing Technology for the Benefit of Humanity” it states that. But when I challenged and inquired of Membership Services for the justification of that claim, “that Technologists now exceeded Engineers in IEEE”, I was told since IEEE keeps no records of member type, that claim could not be verified. After that those words were deleted from both President Ray’s verbal and written words. So, the 3rd word in IEEE still stands for "Engineers".
"So, let's all 10 IEEE Regions work together and build our own independent and self-managed IEEE Professional Society for Engineers, Technologists, Technicians and allied Educators plus Scientific, and etc fields of Practices"- W. Elden, 2023
MOST "TEXT" FILES FOLLOW WITH "NO AUDIO"
TEXT #5 - (PROPOSED) IEEE PRESIDENTIAL “COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGISTS’ AND ENGINEERS’ PROFESSIONALISM” (CTEP)
First-Hand:Proposed IEEE "Committee on Technologists' and Engineers' Professionalism", the CTEP, Walter Elden - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT #6 - "SHOULD EXEMPTED ENGINEERS IN INDUSTRY BE EXPECTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED?"
First-Hand:Elden, W.L., "SHOULD EXEMPTED ENGINEERS IN INDUSTRY BE EXPECTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED?" - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT #7 - First-HandːWhy IEEE Members Need Ethics Advice and Ethical Support-Walter Elden
First-HandːWhy IEEE Members Need Ethics Advice and Ethical Support-Walter Elden
TEXT #8-The PE Industrial Exemptionː Keep it or Toss it?
https://peimpact.com/pe-industrial-exemption/
AUDIO #9- 3 "NO WIN-NO WIN" ETHICS CASESː NASA CHALLENGER DISASTER, VW EMISSION SCANDAL, BOEING 737 MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN FAULTS
- Audio File
- MMP3 Audio
(Elden OH - Interview ADDED ITEM Number 11.mp3)
TEXT # 10 -IEEE ETHICS HISTORY REPOSITORY-PART 1 OF 3
IEEE Ethics History Repository (IEHR) - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT # 11 - IEEE - Position Paper on Ethical Conduct Awareness
httpsː//www.ieee.org/about/ethics/position-paper/.html
TEXT # 12 - Re-Establishing IEEE Members' Right to Ethical Support in Employee-Employer Professional/Ethical Disputes
First-Hand:Re-Establishing IEEE Members' Right to Ethical Support in Employee-Employer Professional/Ethical Disputes - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT # 13 - The BART Case and IEEE's Amicus Curiae Legal Brief 1972 - 1975
Engineering ethics: The amicus curiae brief of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in the BART case
IEEE Ethics History Repository (IEHR) - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT # 14 - History of At-Will Employment Law in the USA, by Dr. Robert Standler, Attorney
http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm
TEXT # 15 - Professional Ethics and Wrongful Discharge, by Dr. Robert Standler, Attorney
http://www.rbs2.com/ethics.htm
TEXT # 16 - MY INCREASED INTEREST IN PROFESSIONALISM AND ETHICS
First-Hand:Challenges IEEE Faced Supporting Ethical Behavior and Professionalism - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT # 17 - Challenges IEEE Faced Supporting Ethical Behavior and Professionalism and My IEEE and Industry Professional and Ethics Experience
https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Challenges_IEEE_Faced_Supporting_Ethical_Behavior_and_Professionalism ===
Bold text=== TEXT # 18 - Oral, Music, Text-History:Walter Elden (Birth thru AGE 91) ===
1. First-Hand: My Growing Up Pre-Engineer Years' Birth thru High School History
2. Oral-History:Adult Walter Elden - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
ALL TEXT FOLLOWS-NO AUDIO
TEXT # 19 - Why IEEE Members Need Ethics Advice and Ethical Support
TEXT # 19- First-HandːWhy IEEE Members Need Ethics Advice and Ethical Support-Walter Elden - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
TEXT # 20 - SHOULD EXEMPTED ENGINEERS IN INDUSTRY BE EXPECTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED
TEXT # 20 - First-Hand:Elden, W.L., "SHOULD EXEMPTED ENGINEERS IN INDUSTRY BE EXPECTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED?" - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
