Oh, I just nitpick sometimes.

Indeed that is correct, however, I would still say that the jury is out on the Dam, if only because the full facts have yet to ever be published, and in an unadulterated form. Should it ever be proven they knew the rock strata was not conducive, or was not properly compensated for, there would certainly be an ethical issue there. Also the question is focusing on an agency or department, so I do not know in Kalifornia where they exactly break their lines. There are a LOT of managers there, which is another ethical issue in itself.

The "board" (engineering management) at Morton Thiokol was not culturally diverse. That was why they were ruled by groupthink. No one could see things differently. The one guy who could was not at that level: he was not invested with power.

As for the case of the dam, dams are complicated on many levels and there's lots of them. Some will fail under stress. Then, we can go back and blame people and condemn institutions, all of them individually and severally for being immoral. The thing is with the Strength of Materials equations, time is not a factor. Something either fails or it does not. S = sE, Stress = strain * modulus of Elasticity. That modulus is empirically derived for each and every material. It looks like science but it is an art.

My bad! Thanks!!

"Failure to miss something"(?) You mean "fail-
ure to spot something", don't you?--Sorry to be
picayune.

Old design. Insufficient maintenance. Organizational apathy. Everybody keeps their retirements...

I know more about this than I'm mentioning here...

Here, I like the Star Trek Worf idea of "Honor". The Klingon code of Honor works on many levels, but is ethically sound, for them, and that is explored on many episodes of STNG and DS9. It goes back to a mystical idea of not being able to enter Stovakar if you did not have Honor. We used to have a strong religious ethic that permeated our society and drove a form of Honor, and people were generally good, kind people. It gave a structure and a penalty for non compliance. Today, it either takes a strong lesson in philosophy that is based on a positive ethic and value set, or you get the loons that abuse animals, kill people, or behave like aholes (driving, anyone?). No structure= No Honor= No "good" behavhior.

Good point. Uh, gave you one too . . .um, for making a good point, that is.

Gov Moonbeam initially wanted all of this shielded from the public and only caved after the public outcry ...hmmmm.http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/...

But then since the oroviile Dam incident state officials quietly inserted a provision into a budget ... under seal, through a provision that makes secret “critical energy infrastructure information.”.

What and take responsibility for their actions?

Interesting conjecture that it is thought that state inspectors should be responsible. The state demands the right and the right to charge to inspect and suspend an ongoing job but if the building fails because of something the state approved they are never responsible. The behavior of an authoritarian entity will always tell you what they are and what is important to them. What I observe is important is the state's ability to collect money and dodge responsibility and avoid following the rules when it is convenient to them. Are they trustworthy? No. When a state agency builds its on products they often cut corners that they would put a stop order on. When the twin towers were built less fire prevention was allowed than what is required of any private builder because they didn't think they needed it. It would not have stopped the fires, perhaps it could have slowed them enough that others could have escaped. Of course there is no way to know for certain if the results would have been different. The state's ethics always seems to be less than what is expected of its slaves.

Good question. How about a conscience.

Thanks for the input.

Thanks, the ethical charter must be followed.

Thanks Herb7734,
Garbage in garbage out.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Ethical behavior? Colorado and New Mexico helped elect Obama both in 2008 and 2012. Before Trump's EPA forces taxpayers nationwide to pay for the malfeasance of Obama's EPA, it should deny any claims from those who voted for Obama on the grounds that they got what they voted for.

The answer is a simple NO.
If Trump can actually drain the swamp, and if that means clear up all the mosquito infested, rotting, decaying, stinking-filled hunks of garbage, then the slightest of possibilities exists for the NO to become a YES.

True enough. But Rand limited government for a reason. Government is all about force, and government without limit is all about any excuse to preserve and extend the mission.

Its a question of motivation and incentive. What is the incentive for public "servants" to behave ethically?

Awesome, thanks Dr Z99.

Thanks for you input.
In cases when too many people are involved with different motivations and that don't have proper knowledge of details , the ethical
aspect of a decision or directive is diluted.

Interesting observations.

I formerly worked as a State inspector in the design and construction of hospitals and other medical facilities.
What I can tell you from my experience is that for the most part, ethics has little to do with it. Inspectors and managers in this agency worked very hard at getting things "right", and "helping" clients understand requirements.
Most agencies set up to inspect or oversee design and/or construction of facilities are overwhelmed with the sheer volume of work. In my agency, we held up projects frequently - some for a year or more - to make sure the designers, owners, and builders got it right. The frustration felt by the Owners, especially those who had large investments at stake, was massive, and understandable. The state legislature ultimately passed a law telling the agency that we had 90 days from submission of a project to approve it, or disapprove it and give the reasons it was disapproved. Lack of action within 90 days resulted in de facto approval.
We could also hold up a project at any point during construction, or at the end of construction by refusing to sign off on a Certificate of Occupancy until certain issues were addressed to our satisfaction. This happened frequently as well, again to the great frustration of those involved.
What I experienced was that the Building Codes are extremely complex and themselves overwhelming. Couple that with the sometimes extensive and complicated regulations issued by States or the Federal Government, and you have a recipe for long delays, overly expensive solutions, and a huge room for error.
Failure to miss something in a structure or building project like a dam is not an indication of unethical practice. Under the conditions described above, with complex Codes and regulations, and arbitrarily imposed deadlines, it is easy to understand how something can be missed. Judging those who reviewed the plans, or inspected the dam some 50 years ago by today's standards is unreasonable and unfair. After all, many changes in Codes and requirements are made as the result of disasters like the dam spillway collapse. Hindsight is 20/20. Anything built so long ago can be characterized as a design that doesn't meet today's standards. But ethics, in my opinion, has nothing to do with it.

Short answer: Yes, but -- IF AND ONLY IF the agency's original charter is ethical. Therein lies the problem!