An Illustrative Case of Ethical Issues Arising on Construction Projects: The 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire

Introduction

This paper uses the 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire  to investigate some of the ethical issues faced by constructors in practice. Certainly the Bonfire was not a typical construction project. It is used here only as an illustration of some ethical practices that should be engaged in on construction projects. The purpose of the paper is not to hold the students or any other entity responsible. The purpose of this paper is to define some of the actions that need to be put into place to avoid disasters such as this.

The Bonfire practices are compared to some of the standards of the construction industry . The goal of this paper is to identify and discuss ethical construction issues raised by  the construction practices used  at the Bonfire. This paper is written from the perspective of the ethical constructor, that is an ethical person engaging in the process of construction. It is based upon the author’s interpretations of ethical practice in the construction industry and from the ethical standards postulated by professional organizations in the industry. It attempts to clarify and articulate some of these vaguely defined ethical standards so that the ethical standards of the construction industry can be better understood and more easily followed by future constructors.

In this paper the term ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical standards’ is defined as the standard of behavior of a particular group – in this case the group is the construction industry as a whole and constructors, engineers, and architects as a group. While it is true that the ethical standards of constructors have not been as detailed as the ethical standards applying to engineers and architects, ethical standards do exist. This paper outlines the ethical standards of the construction industry, constructors, engineers, and architects that were violated in the construction of the 1999 Bonfire.

 Texas A&M University is one of the largest public universities in the United States with approximately 44,000 students. It was established in 1876 as the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, and has developed over the years into a dynamic campus with a varied curriculum and research base.  While no measure of student spirit and loyalty to university alma maters exists, if one did, Texas A&M Aggies would certainly rank very close to the top of that list. The Aggies have developed a rich set of traditions that bind the students, often for their entire lives, to other Aggies and the campus. One of the most popular traditions is the Aggie Bonfire lit prior to the football game with rival University of Texas. It symbolizes the “Aggies' burning desire to beat "t.u." in the annual football game.” A description of various Aggie traditions can be found at http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/.

 The Texas A&M Bonfire was a project that began as a pile of wood and trash in 1909. Over the years it grew to over 100 ft in 1969. The design evolved into a wedding cake shape with six tiers of vertical logs which were spliced together around a center pole using a crane and physical labor. As the design changed over the years changes in the plans and specifications were transferred from year to year from student to student. The Bonfire was always a student activity, primarily controlled by students with limited faculty involvement.

 In the early morning hours of November 18, 1999, while students were working on the Bonfire, or ‘stack’ as it is called, it collapsed killing 12 students: Miranda Denise Adams, Christopher D. Breen, Michael Stephen Ebanks, Jeremy Richard Frampton, Jamie Lynn Hand, Christopher Lee Heard, Timothy Doran Kerlee, Jr., Lucas John Kimmel, Bryan A. McClain, Chad A. Powell, Jerry Don Self, and Nathan Scott West. Twenty-seven other students were injured. A re-creation of the collapse can be found at http://www.tamu.edu/bonfire-commission/reports/.

The Bonfire Commission’s Final Report (May 2000) states that both physical (structural) factors and behavioral factors contributed to the collapse (p. 3). The Commission described and analyzed the structural contributions to the collapse in detail. The Commission's findings concerning the behavioral contributions provide a basis for this study. The behavioral factors included the lack of written design or construction methodology, a culture of  unquestioning student compliance with leader instructions and group pressure, and a culture of narrowly focused reactive responses to risks  and signals of danger (p. 27-29). Not only was no person, organization, or group responsible for oversight of the project, no professionals or people knowledgeable about the construction industry were involved (p. 25) - the design and construction were in the hands of the student leaders of Bonfire. Over the years students made design and construction decisions that ‘adversely impacted structural integrity…student leaders made important design decisions and choices without understanding their impact on structural integrity" (p. 25).

All of the breaches of ethics discussed in this article were unintentional and based upon the ignorance of the parties involved. The writing of this paper was and is an extremely sorrowful project for the authors. The purpose of this paper is not to suggest blame or responsibility for the collapse. In contrast to laying blame, the purpose of this paper is to identify, outline, and clarify certain ethical standards of the construction industry, standards that exist so tragedies such as the Bonfire collapse can be avoided.

Ethics in the Construction Industry

The term ‘ethics’ is defined in several different ways depending on the context. In this paper ethics is defined as the standards of behavior of a particular group. As such, the normal practices, actions, behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes of a group are the ethics of that group. This paper looks specifically at some of the ethical practices or standards of persons in the construction industry.

The construction industry requires the coordinated effort of many professionals: architects, engineers, and constructors. Engineers and architects have for decades been regulated by complex codes of ethics. Engineering, for example, operates under multiple sets of legal, behavioral, and ethical standards. Cannon 1 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Code of Ethics, says in part “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.”  The Texas Engineering Practice Act, Professional Conduct and Ethics, and the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers, have a similar standard. Other engineering organizations such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers have similar codes and standards. Architects have similar collections of codes of ethics. For example, the American Institute of Architects has detailed ethical standards. Note that because the Texas Engineering Practice Act is a law it would not normally be considered only an ethical standard, despite its name. It is included here for completeness. White and Ford (2002) provide a more complete discussion of the ethical responsibility of engineers, had any been involved in 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire.

Constructors have, in recent years, begun to adopt rudimentary codes of ethics. The American Institute of Constructors has a code of ethics with eight basic standards. One standard is: VI. A member shall carry out responsibilities in accordance with current professional practice, so far as it lies within his or her power. The Construction Management Association of American has a code with 11 basic standards. One of these is: "Standards of Practice. I will furnish my services in a manner consistent with the established and accepted standards of the profession and with the laws and regulations which govern its practice."

Research has also addressed the issue of constructor ethics. Hauck and Rockwell (1996) looked at the ten duties believed important to the American Institute of Constructors and tested on the Constructor Certification Exam.  A survey was done to rank the duties in order of importance. These ten duties, in order of importance as determined by the survey, are:

       ·         solve problems and make decisions;

·         monitor project costs;

·         plan project execution;

·         create, maintain and enhance effective working relationships; 

·         establish responsibility for operations and communicate relevant information;

·         determine and procure physical resources for the execution of the project;

·         monitor and control the use of project resources’;

·         develop staffing and subcontractor requirements;

·         develop teams, individuals and staff to enhance performance;

·         and establish and maintain systems and procedures to support operations.

Although this list does not explicitly mention ethics or values, a constructor performing these duties well will also be acting ethically.

Ohm (2002) looked in general at the need for the construction industry to create a more professional work environment in order to attract high quality leadership. He stated this could be done only by strictly adhering to a strong code of ethics.  He outlined the following values as being import to the construction industry: honesty, integrity, competency, objectivity, and fairness.

Killingsworth (1992) stated that regulation is the result of our unwillingness to conduct ourselves in accordance to societal values and ethical standards and suggests that teaching ethics to college students may be a way of reducing regulation. He stated that an increase in ethical conduct will require fewer regulations. His paper seems to allude to the idea that the failure to act ethically is a new phenomenon, rather than the norm for the history of humankind. It is unlikely that any college program will eliminate the innate drive for humans to maximize their own personal well-being. Adam Smith’s (1776) basic idea that ‘in a competitive economy, people acting in their own self-interest will produce an economically efficient system’ is unlikely to be eliminated at any time in the foreseeable future. In fact, forms of market operation that attempted to rely upon the generosity of humans, communism and socialism, have failed or been altered to include competitive processes. These competitive processes take into account the human characteristic of operating in their own best interest.

Ethical standards are turned into laws for a variety of reasons, one of which is that laws are upheld and enforced by governments and have the power of the government behind the standards. Our society has steadily moved from a system largely controlled by ethical and religious standards to one controlled by legal standards – this is done, in part, because legal standards, while not 100% effective, have proven to be more effective and desirable than ethical and religious standards alone. They are more ‘sure’ and so the risk that parties will engage in unacceptable behaviors, such as breaches of contract, is reduced. It is not eliminated surely, but the risk is reduced enough to make the cost of a legal system acceptable to a society. Laws reduce the risks inherent in human-human interactions. On the other hand, while the risk of human-human interaction is great and achieved only at a cost, the benefits apparently outweigh the risks and costs. This is evidenced by the incredible amount of human interaction and dependence.

In their study of the perceptions of construction students regarding the ethics of the construction industry, Jackson and Murphy (1998) presented students with several scenarios and asked them to report 1) what the ethical response would be, and 2) what they thought the ethical response of a typical person in the construction industry would be. The scenarios included:

They concluded that “the students perceived a significant difference between the "ethical" response made to the basic situations and the "typical construction person's response" to the basic situations.”

 Jackson (2001) also conducted a similar survey concerning the perceptions of experienced construction practitioners regarding ethical transgressions in the construction industry.  The study determined that the four most frequently occurring ethical problems were:

 Additionally the survey identified four ‘most serious’ ethical violations: alcohol or drug abuse; improper or questionable bidding practices; failure to protect public health, safety, or welfare and poor quality control or quality of work. Interestingly, these were some of the ethical violations at the Bonfire construction as discussed below.

The Value of Codes of Ethics

A strong commitment to highly ethical behavior is important in the construction industry for a number of reasons. Architects, engineers, and constructors are professionals with specialized knowledge that can and does affect the very lives of millions of people. The competing financial interests, the complexity of laws and regulations, and the detail of contracts, all contribute to a complicated process. It seems at times to be impossible to successfully negotiate. One of the most effective tools architects, engineers, and constructors have to help them navigate through this complex world is a strong commitment to highly ethical behavior and to the highly ethical operation of their particular company. In addition, because the legal and ethical standards generally overlap in the United States of America, it is very likely that a breach of ethics is also a legal violation.

Codes of ethics provide at least some information to the consuming public about the type of service to expect from those who have agreed to be bound by the code. Certainly consumers would like more information. consumers would like to know exactly how any particular constructor will perform. They would like guarantees and warranties, but they cannot always get them. Some information, even incomplete information, is certainly better than no information. And certainly codes of ethics are not the only information consumers seek out. The primary source of information is probably recommendations. Again, just because other sources of information exist for the consuming public does not mean that this particular sources is irrelevant. It is just further down on the list.

Another value of codes of ethics is their affect upon the ongoing debate about acceptable actions by professional persons. Just the fact that professionals and academics write about and discuss specific behaviors has some affect on teaching methods and behavior.

Comparison of Construction Standards and Bonfire Practices

Innumerable practices are required or are standard on construction projects as large as the Bonfire. Many of these practices are not relevant to this study. Six relevant construction practices that deviated on the Bonfire project from industry requirements and standards and common practice have been identified:

1.                   Establish clear lines of responsibility and authority: Written contracts are used to define the roles, authority, and responsibilities of the primary parties in construction projects. The process of coming to legally binding agreements about the roles and responsibilities of the participants leads to accountability and higher quality work. The purposes of this practice include: 1) to be sure someone is responsible for each part of the project, 2) to link responsible parties to portions for which each is responsible, and 3) to provide those with responsibility with the required authority to fulfill their obligations. 

 In contrast to the standard industry practice of establishing clear lines of responsibility and authority, the roles and responsibilities for several critical aspects of the Bonfire were never made clear. The responsibility of the University, the student groups, businesses, faculty, and volunteers was never established. A problem caused by failing to assign responsibility is that participants, and certainly observers, can easily assume that someone else is responsible. In fact, no one took responsibility for many important aspects of the Bonfire project.

To students involved in the Bonfire it is likely that the easy-going flexibility of the Bonfire project was attractive and he or she would not see is as a problem. The student’s goal in the project is to have fun and build community within the ranks of Texas A&M students. Responsibility was secondary. As long as everything got done, it was not really important to define who did it and who was responsible. Certainly some students were in charge of certain tasks, but responsibility tended to be transferred around and no clear records were kept.

 2.                   Management of risks: Construction practitioners recognize that the inherent uncertainty of construction requires the management of risks. Standard  and common practices include using financial and schedule contingencies as buffers to accommodate changes and unexpected events. Some risks are reduced, such as creating safer job sites, through rigorous housekeeping routines. Other risks are shifted to others through contracting, insurance, and bonding. Public and private insurance plans cover design errors and omissions. Worker safety is protected through workers’ compensation insurance. Surety bonds protect owners and general contractors against the risk of business failure.

 In contrast, Bonfire participants engaged in little, if any, risk management. Students were unlikely to recognize the dangers of the practices used in the Bonfire, including:

3.                   Use a facility design prepared by professional engineers: The purpose of this practice is to assure that, if constructed as designed, facilities will perform as intended. This standard requires that only persons trained and experienced in the design of specific types of facilities (e.g. structures) prepare the construction plans and specifications for the project. This practice is implemented in most states by requiring the engineering portions of projects to be designed by a registered professional engineer. Industry practice and state laws (including those in Texas) require designs prepared by professional engineers as a means of insuring minimum quality for construction projects.

In contrast, the design for the Bonfire was the responsibility of student leaders who were untrained or incompletely trained in the design of structures. The design was informal and was altered during the passing of the design from one set of student leaders to the next. No one knowledgeable about the affects of design changes on structural integrity ever reviewed the plans. This failure proved critical. Design changes did not adequately account for increased outward pressures on the steel wires caused by the upper tiers of logs collapsing into the lower tiers. The failure of the steel wires precipitated the collapse that caused the deaths and injuries (Bonfire Reports 2000).

4.                   Comply with safety regulations: The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sets standards for safe construction operations used throughout the industry. These regulations require practices such as the wearing of hardhats, steel-toed boots, and the securing of ladders to reduce the chance of movement during use. The use of specific people and practices are precluded. For example, inadequately trained persons are not to be used. Alcohol, which impairs participants’ abilities to behave and perform in a safe manner, is prohibited.

In contrast volunteers for the construction of the Bonfire performed activities such as the harvesting and transfer of very large logs typically without hardhats and steel-toed boots. The likelihood of injury was increased by this failure. Alcohol use was allowed and persons under the influence of alcohol were permitted to participate in inherently dangerous activities. 

Although common sense suggests the use of OSHA practices, students and Bonfire workers are not legally obligated to comply with OSHA - OSHA requires employers, not employees to do specific things. Of course, one of the major problems with the Bonfire project is there was no ‘employer’ or other responsible person. Developing an understanding of OSHA requirements is, however, a typical part of a construction project manager's career.

5.                   Supervise construction operations with trained and experienced persons: Project superintendents and foremen should be trained and experienced. They should have knowledge and experience of construction tools and practices. They should be able to foresee and anticipate circumstances and practices that could lead to worker injuries and failures of physical facilities. These persons have the responsibility for the safety of those working under their supervision.

In contrast, supervision of the Bonfire construction was by student leaders. Students were not required to have training or experience in proper construction operations. Like the design, construction practices passed informally from year to year and were not based on knowledge of proper construction methods. Student leaders without engineering training or experience had the authority to make decisions concerning the design of the Bonfire and how it was to be built.

6.                   Construction by persons trained to perform the tasks undertaken: By OSHA regulation and for efficiency of operations, construction workers are trained in how to perform specific crafts or operations (e.g. crane operation, concrete, etc.). Certainly, industry standards vary widely concerning the training of construction workers. However, construction work is typically performed by those who have previously proven themselves capable or by apprentices who are controlled by persons with training.

 In contrast, Bonfire volunteers were untrained in construction operations. Those harvesting trees received brief safety training, and professional construction workers such as the crane operator are assumed to have adequate training. However the vast majority of the construction of the Bonfire was by persons with inadequate skills to perform the tasks undertaken.

7.             Obey the law. It is a basic tenet of business ethics that the law be obeyed. However, the Bonfire, as a construction project, was legally required to be designed by an engineer. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 3271a (2000) states:

 Sec. 1.1. In recognition of the vital impact which the rapid advance of knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences as applied in the practice of engineering is having upon the lives, property, economy and security of our people and the national defense, it is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act. (Emphasis added).

(4) "Practice of engineering," or "practice of professional engineering" shall mean any service or creative work, either public or private, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training and experience in the application of special knowledge or judgment of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to such services or creative work.  (Emphasis added).

Summary

In conclusion, the differences between standard construction practices and those seen on the Texas A&M Bonfire project in 1999 are great. These ethical standards of the construction industry are 

1. Establish clear lines of responsibility and authority.
2. Manage risks.
3. Use a facility design prepared by professional engineers.
4. Comply with safety regulations.
5. Supervise construction operations with trained and experienced persons.
6. Have construction by persons trained to perform the tasks undertaken.
7. Obey the law.

Constructors can serve society, others, and themselves better by becoming and remaining aware of these ethical issues and standards, and by using them to guide their construction practices.

References

American Institute of Architects Ethics. (Fall 2002) [WWW document]. URL http://www.aia.org/institute/code.asp

 The American Institute of Constructors. (Fall 2002) [WWW document]. URL http://www.aicnet.org/about/code_of_ethics.cfm

American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics. (Fall 2002) [WWW document]. URL http://www.asce.org/aboutasce/codeofethics.html

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2000) Society Policy, Ethics. (2000) [WWW document]. URL http://www.asme.org/asme/policies/

The Bonfire Commission Reports, Final Report. (May, 2000)  [WWW document]. URL  http://www.tamu.edu/bonfire-commission/

The Construction Management Association of America. (Fall 2002) [WWW document]. URL http://www.cmaanet.org/

Hauck, A. J. & Rockwell, Q.T. Desirable characteristics of the professional constructor. (1996). Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction.  

Jackson, B.J. & Murphy, J.D. Jr. The perceptions of construction students regarding the ethics of the construction industry. (1998). Journal of Construction Education.

 Jackson, B.  Barbara. The Perceptions of Experienced Construction Practitioners Regarding Ethical Transgressions in the Construction Industry. (2001). Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction.

Killingsworth, R. (1992). Integrating ethics into construction curricula. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), Code of Ethics for Engineers. (Fall 2002) [WWW document]. http://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode

Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. (1776). Modern Library edition published 1994.

Texas Revised Statutes, Article 3271a, §§131.151 et. Seq.

White, N.J. and Ford, D. N. (2002). Ethical Responsibility of Engineers for Alumnus Whistleblowing. Proceedings of the National Conference of the Associated Schools of Engineering Educators.