Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ethics and Planning
July 22, 2015APA Virginia Annual Conference Norfolk, VA
Earl Anderson, AICPVirginia Chapter Professional Development Officer
Glenn Larson, AICPRegion II AICP Commissioner
AGENDA
8:00 - Overview of Code 8:20 - Breakout Group Discussions 8:50 - Breakout Group Presentations 9:20 - Questions and Answers
Ethics and Planning
Why talk about ethics?
Most planners at some point in their career will either work in the public sector or come into close contact with the public sector. Citizens have a right to expect that their planners will help elevate governance by serving the public in an ethical manner.
Ethics and Planning
Why talk about ethics?
AICP planners belong to the American Institute of Certified Planners, and must practice in accordance with standards of practice, including the AICP’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Ethics and Planning
Why talk about ethics?
As planners, we are guided by both existing local, and sometimes state, ethics provisions. But frequently none exist, and we must exercise common sense, especially given what we may be guided by in our own aspirational principles.
Ethics and Planning
Why talk about ethics?
Ethics scenarios are rarely “cut and dry” and often contain a high level of nuance. Ethics sessions should help develop reasoning and reflection skills that can be applied in every day situations, as opposed to communicating a set of rules that must be memorized and adhered to.
AICP Code of Ethics• As planners we have an obligation to
serve the public interest and act with the highest integrity
• Defining the public interest may not be easy…conflicting values may be present…ethical judgments must be made
• The code provides a basis to help us as planners evaluate conflicting values and provides ethical guidelines for our public actions.
AICP Code of Ethics Originally adopted in late 1970’s Revised in 1991 Completely rewritten and overhauled in
2005 Serious Crime Provision – Oct. 2009
AICP Code of Ethics New Code – Four distinct sections:
A. Aspirational Principles
B. Rules of Conduct
C. Procedural Provisions
D. Serious Crime
AICP Code of Ethics
Aspirational Principles…
• Ideals to which we are committed• We try to act in accordance to
these principles• If we fail to achieve principles… not
subject to misconduct charge or disciplinary action
AICP Code of Ethics
Rules of Conduct…
• We can be held accountable if we violate these rules
• Charges of misconduct can be filed and adjudicated
• Sanctions can be applied
AICP Code of Ethics
Procedural Provisions…• Procedures for informal and formal
rulings• Procedures for filing charges of
misconduct• Rights and responsibilities of all
parties• Procedures for investigation,
prosecution and adjudication
AICP Code of Ethics
Serious Crime…
• Automatic suspension upon conviction
• Duty to notify ethics officer
• Petition for reinstatement
• Publication of conviction
Our Aspirational Principles
21 Principles – 3 Categories
• Our Overall Responsibility to the Public
• Our Responsibility to our Clients and Employers
• Our Responsibility to our Profession and Colleagues
Rules of Conduct
• 26 Distinct Rules of Conduct• As members of AICP we agree to
adhere to these rules.• Written with clarity - such that each
is enforceable.
Select Rules• We shall not accept an assignment that we know
to be illegal or in violation of rules
• We shall not deliberately fail to provide adequate, timely, clear and accurate information on planning issues
• We shall not accept an assignment from a client or employer to publicly advocate a position on a planning issue that is indistinguishably adverse to a position we publicly advocated for a previous client or employer within the past three years
Select Rules• We shall not, as salaried employees, undertake
other employment in planning or a related profession, paid or unpaid, without permission from our employer
• We shall not direct or coerce other professionals to make analyses or reach findings not supported by available evidence
• We shall neither deliberately, nor with reckless indifference, commit any wrongful act that reflects adversely on our professional fitness
How to React to a Possible Ethical Lapse?• Resist temptation to argue• Retain an open mind and respond only when able
to do so calmly and thoughtfully• Make an effort to clarify points of confusion• Be prepared to apologize, even for an inadvertent
appearance of unethical behavior• Use Code for guidance• Provide full, clear, accurate information• Seek counsel of APA Ethics Officer• Seek resolution – consider a written response
From Everyday Ethics, 2001, Carol D. Barrett, FACIP
AICP Code of EthicsEthics Guidance
Ethics OfficerAmerican Planning Association205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601-5627Telephone: 312-786-6360
Ethics Case of the Year 2015: Waverton
Advice on Conduct: Please Note
This session has been created to provide general education regarding the AICP Code of Ethics.
Though examples, sample problems, and question and answer sessions are an important part of illustrating application of the code’s provisions, all certified planners should be aware that “Only the Ethics Officer [Chief Executive Officer of APA/AICP] is authorized to give formal advice on the propriety of a planner’s proposed conduct.” (AICP Code of Ethics, Section C3).
If you have a specific question regarding a situation arising in your practice, you are encouraged to seek the opinion of the Ethics Officer.
The SetupWaverton is a culturally and demographically diverse medium-sized city of about 100,000 people. It is characterized by a large number of immigrants, many of whom do not speak English and who are mostly employed in the service and agricultural sectors and concentrated in ethnic neighborhoods. In addition, the city is home to:
an active development community who feel the City is too restrictive on development;
a large constituency of relatively well-educated and affluent citizens, mostly employed in government, high-tech and health related jobs;
citizen demand for a robust planning program; and and a general concern about the city’s image.
Planning in Waverton
The City has a well-staffed planning department for a city its size. The department is respected by most in the community and its recommendations are generally heeded by the City Council. However, the planning staff has been increasingly criticized by the development community and by some City Council members as being out of touch with reality, and not supportive of economic development.
Here Comes the Big Box
A major national retailer has applied for a big box discount store. The planning staff has been working very hard to bring a stronger design perspective into the review process and has had some level of success. However, the Land Development Code (LDC) does not include much in the way of specific design requirements.
The City has limited sites that can readily accommodate large-scale development or redevelopment. One of these sites is in an area that is suburban in character has recently been contracted by a national chain for construction of a big box discount store with a full array of retail goods, including groceries, pharmacy, clothing, and household goods. Submitted design plans illustrate a typical mega-store with a vast parking lot in front. The proposed big box store requires special approval by the City Council due to its size requiring staff to make a recommendation based on a wide variety of planning criteria that cover impacts to infrastructure, neighborhood compatibility and community need for the use.
Politics and Planners
Support - The City Council member for the District in which the store is proposed to be located was elected with support of an ethnic minority that lives predominantly in the area surrounding the store. The Council member asserts that her constituents not only want, but also need the store, as many are economically and transportation disadvantaged and the store would provide a wide array of goods at reasonable prices within walking distance of the adjacent neighborhood. In addition some jobs will be created. The council member has been working to get such a store for a long period of time but the socio-economic characteristics of the area have made the effort very difficult.
Politics and Planners
Opposition - The Council member for the nearby District opposes the store, citing possible environmental issues, excessive traffic and the City's vision to create better-designed, walkable spaces of higher character. His constituents drive past the proposed site daily, but have other retail options in their area and really don't like the idea of a discount big-box retailer on the proposed location.
Staff - Member Aaron is assigned to the case because it is located in his geographic area of responsibility. Aaron is a recent planning graduate, out of school for a little more than two years and has recently passed the AICP exam. Aaron has a design-oriented background and is extremely disappointed by the poorly designed site and building being proposed for this site.
BREAKOUT GROUPS
5 Groups Scenarios - Examine yours, read all!
Spokesperson What ethical issues are present? What are the alternatives for action? What specific references do you see in
the AICP Code of Ethics?
Scenario 1. Differences of Opinion and Supervision
Susan is Aaron's supervisor. She is an AICP planner with 10 years of experience. The Planning Director, Bill, drops by Susan’s office and mentions the sensitive political situation with respect to the store. She then passes that information along to Aaron. When Aaron provides Susan with his analysis of the application, she is concerned. Aaron wants to recommend a number of conditions of approval that Susan knows will be unacceptable to the national chain. Susan also does not believe Aaron’s recommended conditions are supported by the LDC.
Discussion Question:
What are Aaron’s obligations in developing his opinion? What professional practices should be observed?
How should Susan approach this situation with Aaron? What should she do as she works with Aaron on his recommendation ?
Scenario 2. Under the influenceAaron has a meeting set with the applicant to go over all his concerns. The meeting is scheduled just after lunch, and Aaron is very nervous because he hasn’t dealt with a controversial project like this before. He decides he needs to relax, so takes a walk from the office making it back just in time for the meeting. Susan, Aaron’s supervisor also sits in the meeting. She knows how worked up Aaron is about this application and is a little concerned. Part of the concern is her thought that Aaron is stretching the code requirements too far to actually be able to require some of what he wants to require. She is surprised at the meeting that Aaron seems overly relaxed. Aaron had been very articulate in his concerns when briefing Susan, but now seems unable to form a coherent thought. The meeting was a mess with the applicant unable to understand what the concerns were, so Susan had to take over and explain even though she was not as familiar with the application nor as concerned as Aaron about the design. After the meeting Susan approaches Aaron and notices a smell that takes her back to her recent vacation in Colorado. The applicant asks to talk to her without Aaron. The applicant informs her they intend to file a complaint with AICP about Aaron being under the influence while working.
Discussion Question:
What are key ethical issues Susan needs to consider in approaching this situation?
Scenario 3. PressureSusan forwards a recommendation to Planning Director Bill that includes appropriate conditions based on the LDC, sound planning principles and neighborhood input. The store reluctantly agrees to some concessions that make the site more walkable and address some concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood is excited that it will finally be getting a store of its own. The City Manager , Lou, is very aware that the two Council members have differing opinions on the store. He also knows the Council member in favor of the store is not likely to win her upcoming election and has not supported him. The opposing Council member is a strong supporter of the City Manager. Lou asks Planning Director Bill for the draft staff recommendation. After reviewing it, the City Manager asks Bill to significantly revise the conditions of approval in a way that will either make the store more acceptable to the opposing Council member or position it for the Council member to advocate denial. He cites concerns relative to the City's character and points out that social justice considerations dictate that the adjacent economically disadvantaged community receives just as attractive an environment as the more affluent areas of the city. Bill argues that the staff needs some independence or will not be respected as professionals. Lou says he would be glad to give Bill and Susan independence…..from city employment.
Discussion Question:
How should Bill respond to the City Manager's request?
If push comes to shove, what should Bill and Susan do? How far can/should a planner go to save their job?
Scenario 4. Taking Credit
After getting the applicant to provide a more sensitive design, Bill and the City Manager make the case that if Council wants better design in the future they need to really beef up the design standards in their Land Development Code. Council approves a budget to hire a consultant to perform that work. Bill sends out an RFP and receives a number of submittals. A leading planning and design firm known as P&D Associates, in practice for about 20 years received the RFP. Tom was an important partner in P&D Associates and specialized in form based and strong design oriented codes. Tom did all the code design standards work along with Ann, a planner and landscape architect, for P&D. The principals of P&D and Tom and Ann are all AICP members. Tom and Ann left to form their own firm, FBC Associates. FBC responded to the RFP along with P&D Associated. Both firms submitted the same three project examples in their proposals.Both firms were interviewed and during the interview, each firm was asked who in their firm had worked on the three project examples included in their proposals. The answers made it clear to the City that the current staff at P&D Associates did not work on the three example projects. Tom and Ann were very upset that their work was used as an example in their former firm’s proposal.
Discussion Question:
What should the City do? What should Tom and Ann do?
Scenario 5. On the Other Side of the Table
Tom is a local AICP planning consultant working for the developer of the big box store. From a contract with a previous owner of the property, he is aware of some contamination on the site caused by the previous owner's use of the site. He knows that the previous owner/client would not want the contamination disclosed and feels bound to confidentiality on this issue. He also knows that there are some implications for public health depending on how the site is developed.
Discussion Question:
What are his responsibilities under the Code of Ethics?
