Base on the Case study that is provided please answer the question thank you.

Note: After an explanation please provide these parts: Analysis/Findings and Solutions/ Recommendation please take your time…. the more information and evidence provided the better please help us in this case study thank you

Did the members actions in regarding with his testimony at the hearing violates any Law concerning Civil Engineering practices? Explain

 

A member of ORGANIZATION requests to speak at a state legislative meeting on garbage treatment in X. He also includes biographical details on his background in sewage, including his chairmanship of an ORGANIZATION committee on waste management, with his request. While the member wishes to participate on his own initiative rather than at ORGANIZATION's request, the state's materials issued in advance of the public forum contain several allusions to his ORGANIZATION connection. In addition, the member is introduced as the chair of an ORGANIZATION waste management committee at the hearing. The ORGANIZATION member made several offensive statements about the impact of industrial trash on the state's marine ecosystem throughout his testimony. He argues that a "toxic sea of muck" exists off the coast of the state, making fish survival impossible over a "many, many square mile" radius. He also claims that the agencies in charge of dealing with the situation have been "considerably dragging their feet" because of the expense involved, preferring to keep the problem "out of sight and out of mind." Several newspaper articles suggest that ORGANIZATION's waste management committee chair is seeing grave environmental implications in the state's coastal waters, based on the member's sensationalist wording. The story sparks a brief media frenzy, and the leaders of ORGANIZATION's local unit field numerous calls from journalists wanting more information on ORGANIZATION'S "official" position on the "toxic sea of muck." The section officers file a complaint with ORGANIZATION'S Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC) alleging three areas of misbehavior, believing the member's actions were unethical. First, they allege that during the hearing, the member falsely identified himself as an ORGANIZATION spokesman. Second, they claim that the engineer's "irresponsible and unprofessional assertions" served to scare and mislead the public by dramatically misrepresenting the state's coastal waters' actual condition. Finally, they claim that the member's testimony revealed his lack of familiarity with contemporary monitoring and research initiatives in nearshore seas, implying that he was speaking on a subject about which he was not competent.