Ethical Planning Practitioner

Jerry Weitz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351177481
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Arquitectura
• Subtopic: Planificación urbana y paisajismo

If a local college gives a city planner tickets to a sold-out football game, is it wrong to take them – even if the planner pays? Should a planning consultant bid on a project that has a clearly unrealistic timeframe? Can a planning director moonlight for another agency? For practicing planners, potential ethics violations abound, and the eye of public scrutiny never blinks. Planners need a guide, and now they have it: the first guidebook based on the current revision of the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The Ethical Planning Practitioner presents 76 scenarios, all real-life dilemmas based on the code's rules of conduct. Each scenario comes with tools to help planners explore the answers on their own, in a training session, or in a classroom. This vital handbook looks at everyday ethics the way planners need to see them, in black, white, and shades of gray – but most of all, clearly. It will not only instruct but inspire planners to strengthen the public's trust.

Scenarios

Scenario 1
Disagreement With Supervisor’s Recommendation

A planning director for a local government has developed draft land-use policies in a proposed comprehensive plan that have the support of a few vocal, politically and financially connected community members. The vast majority of the public does not support these policies. You are a junior-level planner and believe that the planning director’s draft land-use policies promote exclusionary zoning and create an unnecessary cost burden to provide inefficient infrastructure. You approach the planning director and express your views, suggesting that changes to the policies are needed. The planning director, however, is not persuaded and refuses to change the draft land-use policies. What should you do now? (Carolin, Gerhart-Fritz, and Weitz 2012)

Commentary

Relevant AICP Code Provisions

Principles to Which We Aspire

• 2.a. Exercise independent judgment
• 2.b. Accept client decision unless illegal …
• 3.b. Educate public on planning issues
• 3.c. Treat other professionals fairly

Your options appear to be (1) accept the planning director’s decision not to revisit the land-use policies, or (2) dissent. Your action strategy depends on just how strong your convictions are. Even though the planning director disagrees with you, you still have a right, perhaps even some responsibility, to educate the public about planning issues (3.b), including how the land-use plan is relevant to everyday lives (2.b). In this scenario you have to decide which principle is most important: responsibility to the employer and client, or responsibility to the public. The planning director is your supervisor, but the ethical planning practitioner does not lose sight of multiple clients, including the public generally. Ethical planning practitioners can exercise dissent if their convictions are so strong that they feel compelled to do so, and if they have done the analysis to justify those convictions. Dissent strategies could include discussing the policy disagreement with the planning director’s supervisor or attempting to rally people in opposition to the policies. If you decide to dissent, consider the tactics carefully, since each dissent tactic can have its own consequences and ethical overtones. If you elect to dissent, you need to be fair and professional in arguing against the planning director’s position (3.c). I would probably not exercise dissent in this instance, since I’ve already exercised independent judgment (2.a), and because there is some prospect that the public will rise in opposition to the draft land-use policies without prodding or encouragement on my part. I would not attempt to rally the public against the draft land-use policies, given my junior position, and since an appearance of subterfuge or insubordination could damage my relationship with my boss and potentially reduce my influence in the future.

Scenario 2
Conflict with Supervisor

You are the planning manager for a local government. Your immediate supervisor is not an AICP member and holds the politically appointed role of community and economic development director, a position that advocates for growth. The director often sees things from the applicant’s point of view. As the planning manager, you find that the director looks for ways to bypass zoning and development code provisions, reinterpret code, or otherwise soft-pedal the land-use regulations. One or more members of the public and local government staff bring this up as an issue. Is there any course of action for you to take other than implementing the zoning and development code honestly? (Carolin, Gerhart-Fritz, and Weitz 2012)

Commentary

Relevant AICP Code Provisions

Principles to Which We Aspire

• 1.h. Deal fairly and evenhandedly
• 2.a. Exercise independent judgment
• 2.b. Accept client decision unless illegal …
• 3.c. Treat other professionals fairly

Rules of Conduct

• 2. Illegal or unethical conduct

Zoning and development code administration may not be considered a “planning process,” but in my view the code should be interpreted more broadly to encompass zoning administration and other processes involving planners. You cannot deal evenhandedly with all zoning applicants (1.h) if the director exercises undue administrative discretion with regard to zoning and land-development codes in favor of economic development. A continued lack of evenhandedness on the part of the director will likely cause increasing discontent. Rezoning and development proposals that don’t create economic development deserve the same interpretations of zoning codes that are given to applicants of projects that do stimulate the economy. Nor can you exercise independent judgment (2.a), or at least effectuate that judgment, if the director is prone to overruling you. Furthermore, you cannot act diligently and competently under such circumstances. Hence, the situation must be confronted.

One option is for you to discuss the issue with the director, inform her of your dissatisfaction, and ask for an improvement of relations so that you can function appropriately in your job. Another option is for you to report the problem to the director’s supervisor. The director is politically appointed in this scenario, so her supervisor would be the local governing body or local government manager. In doing so, you need to be cognizant of principle 3.c and be fair in commenting about the activities of the director. While not solving the immediate ethical problems, your discussions with the governing body or manager about the inherent and explicit conflicts that arise when development administration comes under the same authority as community and economic development could lead to a local government reorganization of those functions so that the integrity of both can be preserved. Yet another option might be to contact the local government’s legal counsel and seek direction or even intervention.

Rule of conduct 2 indicates that “We shall not accept an assignment from a client or employer when the services to be performed involve conduct that we know to be illegal or in violation of these rules.” If you continue with your job under the present circumstances, you are accepting an assignment under circumstances where conduct (the director’s, not your own) is apparently unlawful: The director is interpreting local laws (zoning and development codes) in a way that is inconsistent with their strict construction and context—at least in your view as the planning manager. You would be right to insist that your development code administrative assignment not continue under the present circumstances, because continuing your job under the circumstances would involve accepting future assignments involving conduct that you believe is unlawful (because an adopted law is not being followed). Perhaps you even have an obligation under rule of conduct 2 to remedy the situation or quit the job if a satisfactory and ethical solution cannot be prescribed.

Principle 2.b raises an interesting question about loyalty. To some extent, the director’s staff should be expected to defer to her overall direction of the department, including administrative discretion. The director has a conception of economic development as a primary public interest, and judging by her job title, the department was set up with economic development in mind. However, it is apparent in this scenario that the director is taking far too much liberty in zoning and development code administration. It is much better to change the laws in favor of economic development if that is the sentiment of the community, rather than bend the code, because that can lead to inconsistent and therefore incompetent administration. In my view, you should attach loyalty to the local governing body, which is ultimately responsible and accountable, not to the position of department director.

Scenario 3
Proposed Change to First Redraft of Official Zoning Map

You are a planner working for a small town that has an outdated zoning ordinance and official zoning map. While you are presenting your redraft of the official zoning map to the town’s planning commission during a work session, with no public or media in attendance, one of the members of the planning commission articulates a desire to change the zoning designation on property he owns. He takes a pen out and changes his property on the draft zoning map from single-family residential to commercial zoning. None of the other planning commission members in attendance say or do anything; they remain frozen. How do you respond to the planning commissioner’s proposal?

Commentary

Relevant AICP Code Provisions

Principles to Which We Aspire

• 2.b. Accept client decision unless illegal …
• 2.c. Avoid appearance of conflict of interest

Rules of Conduct

• 2. Illegal or unethical conduct

The town planning commissioner has capitalized on an opportunity to influence a public decision-making process to serve his own interests. Arguably, the commissioner has a duty to provide input and may legitimately make recommendations and suggestions. In this case, however, the commissioner is advocating for his own real property interests, which could clearly be considered a conflict of interest.

Principle 2.c reads: “We shall avoid a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in accepting assignments from clients or employers.” It is not you who is engaged in a conflict (or potential conflict) of interest, but the principle is not necessarily limited to your own conduct. You have significant influence and responsibility in this public process, and the ethical planner will aspire per principle 2.c to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest, even one that is not your own.

The planning commissioner’s action may be unlawful in some states. You should check the law for planning commissioner ethics in your state, if there is one (see Appendix B for a summary of ethics laws at the state level). For example, in Arizona, it appears that the planning commissioner’s action would be unlawful. Or you might ask the town’s attorney for an opinion in the matter. If it is determined to be unlawful for the planning commissioner to engage in a conflict of interest, would you be violating rule of conduct 2 if you acquiesce to the planning commissioner’s demand? In my view, yes; the planner would violate rule of conduct 2 in a state that had a law making the planning commissioner’s action unlawful, because unless you object and refuse you would be accepting an assignment from a client which involves conduct you have confirmed is illegal.

I would refuse to do what the commissioner suggests. Refusal to cooperate is especially appropriate if it is confirmed that the action is unlawful, but one could also justify a refusal to cooperate based on the aspiration to avoid a conflict of interest. If I were a planner in a state where the action is not clearly unlawful, I would inform the planning commissioner that I will not make the requested change because it is inconsistent with principle 2.c.

For Further Discussion

What about principle 2.b? It reads: “We shall accept the decisions of our client or employer concerning the objectives and nature of the professional services we perform unless the course of action is illegal or plainly inconsistent with our primary obligation to the public interest.” If the planning commissioner’s action is not illegal, the planner has to determine if the professional services requested are plainly inconsistent with the primary obligation to the public interest. This may be so, on the basis of inconsistency with principle 2.c. In the absence of such a finding by the planner, should the planner aspire to accept the planning commissioner’s action because he is the client? I think not. The town itself is the client, and the commissioner is just one member of a board that advises the client.

Scenario 4
Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Land from Development

You are a consulting land planner, and your client has asked you to prepare a development proposal and land plan for a site that in your opinion should not be developed due to environmental limitations, including wetlands, floodplains, prime agricultural land, and soils unsuitable for septic tank drain fields. You also know that both the local government jurisdiction and the state are rather lax when it comes to enforcement of environmental regulations. What do you do? Should you take the assignment? (Carolin, Gerhart-Fritz, and Weitz 2012)

Commentary

Relevant AICP Code Provisions

Principles to Which We Aspire

• 1.g. Excellent design; preserve heritage
• 3.e. Apply customary solutions with caution

Rules of Conduct

• 1. Inaccurate information—untruthfulness
• 2. Illegal or unethical conduct
• 3. Change of public position on an issue

It is clear from the AICP Code that you are obligated to give the client adequate and accurate information about the environmental limitations of the site and to share your opinion that it should not be developed (1). Further, it would not be appropriate for you to withhold information about the environmental limitations of the land proposed for development, because you should aspire to protect the environment (1.g).

If...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• SCENARIOS
• INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
• APPENDICES
• REFERENCES
• SCENARIO INDEXES
• INDEX