Nuada, Dexter L.

2012-22347
CE 123

Spiro Agnew's Issue: Engineering Ethics

Spiro Agnew, a member of the Baltimore Country Board Commissioners, used

his position to funnel roadwork to engineers who, in turn, provided him suitable
kickbacks. When Agnew became a governor of Maryland, he continued this practice
on a larger scale. Several engineers, state officials, and businessmen were identified
as participants in the scheme. At that time, state engineering contracts in Maryland
were not awarded on the basis of public bids. The selection of engineers for the
contracts was solely at the discretion of the governor and the members of the State
Roads Commission. According to the report prepared by the Department of Justice,
several engineering firms were awarded state contracts with the understanding that
they were to pay Agnew a percentage of the amount of the contract. Some engineers
made this payment through a go-between who also received a share of the payment,
while others made the payment directly to Agnew while he was Maryland's governor.
When he became Richard Nixon's vice president, Agnew continued to collect
kickbacks, some of which were delivered by engineers in plain brown envelopes to
the basement of the White House. Clearly saying that engineers were involved in a
dirty circulation money within the circle politics that time. When Spiro Agnew made
his declaration of income tax as a vice president, he did not include the kickbacks
from every contract made with the engineers. Then the whole issue burst into pieces,
on October 3, 1973 Spiro Agnew decided to admit evasion of Federal Income under
an agreement with the Department of Justice that he will avoid imprisonment.

Nuada, Dexter L.
2012-22347
CE 123

From this issue, Civil Engineers who were involved evidently violated some
engineering ethics. First, Civil Engineers shall act in professional matters for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflict of interest.
High public official such as Spiro Agnew benefiting financially for civil engineers to
have their contracts was an example of conflict of interest. Secondly, Civil Engineers
shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not
compete unfairly with others. In the issue, engineers who gave money to win a
contract compete unfairly with others who did not. Lastly, as a Civil Engineer one
must act in such manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity and dignity of
the civil engineering profession. Clearly the latter was violated as engineers in the
issue were involved in the dirty circulation of money.