American Planning Association Exam AICP Topic 3 Question 7 Discussion

Actual exam question for American Planning Association's American Institute of Certified Planners exam

Question #: 7
Topic #: 3

[All American Institute of Certified Planners Questions]

Scenario

You work as a city planner in Town X. You recently accepted additional planning employment in Town Y, which is about 15 miles away and in the next county. Towns X and Y are similar in many respects. As a consultant for Town Y, you recommend a 50-foot buffer around a lake to protect water quality. Town Y is about to take action on this recommendation. However, in town X there are no buffer regulations and substantial residential development has been proposed to include construction to within 10 feet of a lake. The mayor and the council are very supportive of the proposed development, but a lake conservation group is demanding a buffer of at least 50-feet around the lake. What might you do?

AFirst, 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 2, 7). However, a planner should not advocate for two opposing positions simultaneously. (Rule of Conduct 8) 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 6, 8).

BFirst, 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).

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Whitley at May 08, 2022, 10:57 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AICP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!