APA AICP American Institute of Certified Planners Exam Exam Practice Test

See Ethical Principles 1, 3; Rule of Conduct 20. Having special concern for the long-range consequences of present actions per Ethical Principle 1 refers to the consequences of planning decisions, not to individual behavior.

C. Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Zones

D. Telecommunications Act

First, understand that the moonlighting should have been clearly explained to the primary and secondary employers and approved in writing (Rule of Conduct 4). Full written disclosure to both towns prior to accepting work in Town Y should have said that there might be conflict. Planners should try to foresee consequences, and this situation is a logical consequence of working in two very similar communities. Even with full written disclosure before beginning to work for Town Y, as soon as the potential for conflict became apparent, you should have furnished a second written disclosure to both employers and received written permission to proceed (Rules of Conduct 3, 4). However, a planner should not advocate for two opposing positions simultaneously. (Rule of Conduct 3) So unless there is a very real difference between the two situations, such as a different geologic structure of the lakes, you should remove yourself from doing one job or the other. To continue in both positions and allow the conflicting recommendations to proceed will likely diminish your reputation and effectiveness in both communities (Ethical Principles 2, 3).

Before consulting ethical guides, one must examine the relevant charter of enabling legislation to ensure that no specific or implied requirements for public review are being ignored. If such is the case, the planner should move immediately to inform others of the need to operate m compliance with the law. In this instance, we are assuming that the issue is not one of failing to meet the legal requirements. The public has the right to participate in public decision-making. The Code is quite explicit in urging that planners strive to provide full, clear and accurate information and to give citizens the opportunity to have meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs. However, the Code does not state at what point in the planning process that public participation should occur. In some communities, there is little participation in CIP planning as opposed to setting community goals

You should first begin with alternative 2 and collect a little more information about the process. Investigate the situation to see if there has been a public participation process in the past. Perhaps you could sit in on a meeting of the review committee and find out if the decisions being made follow good planning practice and publicly adopted plans. If so, there may be no ethical problems.

If you are not permitted to join the committee or if people are not forthcoming in their responses, you should raise this issue with your supervisor and be prepared to act upon alternative 3. This course of action needs to be undertaken within the context of your responsibilities to fairly treat the views of colleagues. In this case, your newness may mean that you do not understand what is a well understood and completely accepted process. On the other hand, your fresh perspective may be just what is needed to remind the planners of a trap they may have fallen into as they substituted their role for that of the Commissioners m an effort to make the Commissioners' job a little more easy. There are many other ways that community participation can be solicited absent the presentation of a laundry list of capital projects. A "call for projects" could be issued to all the relevant citizen boards and commissions in your community. The Planning Commission meeting at which the CIP report is to be discussed should be advertised. You can suggest these and other alternatives to your director to help structure a more participatory process

Reject Alternative 4. This is hardly the type of problem that merits resignation. Your newness may mean that you do not understand what is a completely accepted process within your new community. You also may have learned an important lesson in that not all the information you need to do your job will be handed to you. You need to be prepared to gather additional intelligence from your colleagues, files, and other records about how to oo your job. Keep in mind that the Code is not the place to seek information about how to "get the hang" of a new job You should be cautious about jumping to conclusions. A conversation with a more experienced planner can help you work through such circumstances. You could also talk with the Professional Development Officer of your local chapter.

Clashing values are not uncommon in the planning process, so you might work to gather sufficient facts to distinguish between the perception of the problem and the reality and to fully understand the history of the community. While you are committed to serving the public interest, this can be difficult when you are serving a public with opposing points of view You might write a report that includes arguments for and against the proposed regulatory changes along with relevant facts that clarify the situation, including a discussion of housing affordability in your community and how the proposed regulation may affect the supply of affordable housing. In your report you might balance concerns about affordable housing with concerns about preserving the integrity of the built environment

You might recommend that additional meetings be scheduled to ensure opportunity for further public input that will be seriously considered in making a final recommendation. Based on these meetings, your report may contain a recommendation that the jurisdiction develop and support regulations that allow higher density development on the grounds that such regulations would expand housing choice, particularly for those of low to moderate income

If you have any doubt about your conclusion, you might present the situation to a mentor or to a planner who is not involved in the situation (in another jurisdiction, for example) to discuss it. (Rule of Conduct 18) Planners are responsible to their employers; you might go to your supervisor with clear information on which your analysis was based, such as prices asked by other consultants for similar work, and point out your concerns. Your supervisor may appreciate your honesty and professionalism and accept your recommendation. Should you be required to falsify your recommendation, other options might be to “blow the whistle” or to go to an attorney. If supervisor is member of AICP, file an ethics charge against your supervisor (Procedure 5) or ask for an advisory ruling about your own conduct (Procedure 3)

You should worry about the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if the invitation for dinner is not intended to enhance your friend’s chances of being awarded the contract (Rules of Conduct 5, 8, 19) Because you have no influence about the decision to award the contract, which would include having no professional contact with the decision-makers, you might have dinner with your friend, but it might be safer to postpone the dinner until after the contract has been awarded.