American Planning Association American Institute of Certified Planners Exam Practice Test

Page: 1 / 14
Total 134 questions

Want more questions? Get Premium Access.
()

Question 1

Scenario: Negative Comments about Consultant Work

At a recent national planning conference, you hear some very negative things about the quality of work done for clients by a well known consulting planning firm. Some of the comments are from people who may not have first-hand information At least one of the critical statements was made directly by a former client The firm, by coincidence, has now submitted a proposal to do work for your community. You call all of the references supplied by the consultant They check out fine. What should you do next?

Ethical Issues: How do you make sure that you don't pass on gossip, but do respond to legitimate issues affecting foe expenditure of public dollars?

Action Alternatives:

1. You have checked the references and they were fine. The folks you talked to are reasonable and had direct knowledge of the consultant's work. You do not want to appear to be looking to make trouble for yourself or anyone else You decide no further action is necessary.

2. When spending public money, you have a responsibility to make sure that the public will get the best value. This requires you to be zealous in determining whether there are any reasons for not hiring the consulting firm. After all, consulting firms do not ever list clients who they think might give them a bad reference. You call for references checking with names not on the list provided by the firm.

3. Other

Commentary: Negative Comments About Consultant Work

Code Citations:

C .1 A planner must protect and enhance the integrity of the profession and must be responsible in criticism of the profession

C .2 A planner must accurately represent the qualifications, views, and findings of colleagues.

C .3 A planner who reviews the work of other professionals must do so in a fair, considerate, professional, and equitable manner

AThe answer is given as an example. You need to write an essay based on the text given in the task.

Answer : A

You want to be fair in your treatment of a colleague while at the same time making sure that you do not engage a consultant who will not be able to fulfill the requirements of the professional services agreement.

Alternative 1 saves you work, but ignores the fact that you have information which affects your confidence in one of the proposers You would not be in violation of the Code by doing nothing because you would have followed all of your community's standard procedures for hiring However, you would have failed to be attentive to the apparitional intent of the Code.

Alternative 2 would be the most desirable and is most consistent with the Code requirement to fairly treat the views of a colleague In this case you wish to treat fairly the views of those who have disparaged the consultant as well as the view of the consultant him or herself Unless you have specifically stated in your RFP that the only references you will check are those provided by the consultant, you are free to seek out additional information. To be fair, you should mention to the consultant that you will be checking with other colleagues. If you have major unresolved issues as a result of further checking, the consultant should be given an opportunity to respond.

Question 2

Scenario

The owner of the local NFL football team tells the mayor through the press that he will relocate his team unless the city builds a new stadium and practice field. The mayor wants the team to stay because his campaign platform included a promise to keep the team in the community. He asks you, the planning director, to evaluate the costs and benefits of building a new stadium. The planning staff does the analysis and demonstrates that large-scale public investment in a new stadium makes no economic sense and may lead to bankruptcy. What might you do?

AAs with any analysis, verify the facts and assumptions made in the analysis and be sure that all appropriate procedures were used. Write the report accurately despite the fact that it may be embarrassing to the mayor. However, before presenting the report publicly, as with any report and because you are sensitive to the mayor's dilemma, it would be best to first to reveal its contents to the mayor. Should the situation be politically charged, you might recommend having a consultant revisit the analysis and present the findings to the mayor. The mayor may be more willing to consider alternatives when they are presented by a paid, independent, expert consultant rather than by staff (Ethical Principle 4) Suppose the mayor, upon learning about your report, refuses to make it public and makes plans to go ahead with the construction of a new stadium. Then, it may be time to resign. Or, it may be time to release the information to the media because of your responsibility to the public regarding the long-range consequences of actions, which may obviously put your job in jeopardy (Ethical Principle 1; Rule of Conduct 8)
Suppose the mayor pressures you to alter your findings and report favorably on the potential impacts of the stadium. Then you might engage in a frank discussion with the mayor and suggest some alternatives. The mayor may, for example, discard the idea in favor of a proposal to conduct significant renovations to the existing facility. Suppose you see that the information about how bad the new stadium might be for the community as a whole as well as information about the pressure being applied by the mayor might be helpful in preventing the mayor from winning reelection. And suppose you do not personally want to see this mayor reelected. As a planning director, you may NOT use the information to your personal advantage, and, for example, go directly to the press with the results of the analysis (Rule of Conduct 5)
Suppose you are indifferent as to the mayor's election but believe that this course of action will bankrupt the community. To prevent a substantial injury to the public, you could still go to the press after verifying all facts and seeking reconsideration of the matter

BAs with any analysis, verify the facts and assumptions made in the analysis and be sure that all appropriate procedures were used. Write the report accurately despite the fact that it may be embarrassing to the mayor. However, before presenting the report publicly, as with any report and because you are sensitive to the mayor's dilemma, it would be best to first to reveal its contents to the mayor. Should the situation be politically charged, you might recommend having a consultant revisit the analysis and present the findings to the mayor. The mayor may be more willing to consider alternatives when they are presented by a paid, independent, expert consultant rather than by staff (Ethical Principle 2) Suppose the mayor, upon learning about your report, refuses to make it public and makes plans to go ahead with the construction of a new stadium. Then, it may be time to resign. Or, it may be time to release the information to the media because of your responsibility to the public regarding the long-range consequences of actions, which may obviously put your job in jeopardy (Ethical Principle 1; Rule of Conduct 7)
Suppose the mayor pressures you to alter your findings and report favorably on the potential impacts of the stadium. Then you might engage in a frank discussion with the mayor and suggest some alternatives. The mayor may, for example, discard the idea in favor of a proposal to conduct significant renovations to the existing facility. Suppose you see that the information about how bad the new stadium might be for the community as a whole as well as information about the pressure being applied by the mayor might be helpful in preventing the mayor from winning reelection. And suppose you do not personally want to see this mayor reelected. As a planning director, you may NOT use the information to your personal advantage, and, for example, go directly to the press with the results of the analysis (Rule of Conduct 7)
Suppose you are indifferent as to the mayor's election but believe that this course of action will bankrupt the community. To prevent a substantial injury to the public, you could still go to the press after verifying all facts and seeking reconsideration of the matter

Answer : B

Question 3

Scenario

A site application is complete and is about to go before the planning commission. You have a conflict of interest because you personally own property near the proposed site and stand to benefit from the increase in property value that the new development is projected to generate. If you are the only planner in the community what might you do?

AYou are definitely conflicted in this case. So first issue is to recognize this financial conflict of interest and disclose it. (Rule of Conduct 6) You have 2 options. One option is to get approval of your supervisor with full written disclosure as to your personal interest. You may get consent in writing to move forward and complete the review.
The second option is to hire an independent consultant to review the situation. It is good policy for a planning department to pre-qualify consultants for such situations so that the matter can be expeditiously turned over. This may also be a good route to take if the applicant is a member of the city council and has hiring authority over the planner.

BYou are definitely conflicted in this case. So first issue is to recognize this financial conflict of interest and disclose it. (Rule of Conduct 8) You have 4 options. One option is to get approval of your supervisor with full written disclosure as to your personal interest. You may get consent in writing to move forward and complete the review.
The second option is to hire an independent consultant to review the situation. It is good policy for a planning department to pre-qualify consultants for such situations so that the matter can be expeditiously turned over. This may also be a good route to take if the applicant is a member of the city council and has hiring authority over the planner.

Answer : A

Question 4

Scenario

A site application is complete and is about to go before the planning commission. As a member of the planning staff, you believe there is the appearance of a conflict of interest for a planning commissioner who owns property near the proposed site and stands to benefit from the increase in property value that the new development is projected to generate. What might you do?

AFirst, consider what should already have happened before the application was about to go before the planning commission. Clearly, you should know about any laws in your state or jurisdiction that apply to such a situation and should follow the law. The potential conflict should have been identified well before this. After noticing the conflict, based on office protocol, it must be decided who will approach (or confront) the commissioner about the conflict of interest. If your boss is unwilling to explain the conflict of interest, you must decide how you will handle this. You might ask the APA Ethics Officer for informal advice on what you should do (Procedure 2).
Whoever brings the conflict to the attention of the commissioner should recommend that the commissioner recuse himself or herself from the planning commission meeting. Suppose the potential conflict only became apparent at the time of the meeting. At that point in time, you should explain the problem to the planning director. Then, the planning director and the commissioner might consult privately and decide what to do; if the law is clear, obviously the decision must be to follow the law. If the decision is made that the commissioner should recuse himself or herself from the decision-making process, then the commissioner should leave the room. Recusing oneself means more than just sitting there quietly. In addition, the commissioner must not engage in future discussions with the board or planning staff about the application (Ethical Principle 2).
Suppose the law on what constitutes a conflict of interests is not clear or does not exist and suppose that the commissioner says that this is silly and that there is no conflict of interest. Then you might go to the jurisdictional attorney for guidance. If the commissioner continues to participate in the process, you should clearly state the conflict in your report (Rule of Conduct 19).

BFirst, consider what should already have happened before the application was about to go before the planning commission. Clearly, you should know about any laws in your state or jurisdiction that apply to such a situation and should follow the law. The potential conflict should have been identified well before this. After noticing the conflict, based on office protocol, it must be decided who will approach (or confront) the commissioner about the conflict of interest. If your boss is unwilling to explain the conflict of interest, you must decide how you will handle this. You might ask the APA Ethics Officer for informal advice on what you should do (Procedure 3).
Whoever brings the conflict to the attention of the commissioner should recommend that the commissioner recuse himself or herself from the planning commission meeting. Suppose the potential conflict only became apparent at the time of the meeting. At that point in time, you should explain the problem to the planning director. Then, the planning director and the commissioner might consult privately and decide what to do; if the law is clear, obviously the decision must be to follow the law. If the decision is made that the commissioner should recuse himself or herself from the decision-making process, then the commissioner should leave the room. Recusing oneself means more than just sitting there quietly. In addition, the commissioner must not engage in future discussions with the board or planning staff about the application (Ethical Principle 1).
Suppose the law on what constitutes a conflict of interests is not clear or does not exist and suppose that the commissioner says that this is silly and that there is no conflict of interest. Then you might go to the jurisdictional attorney for guidance. If the commissioner continues to participate in the process, you should clearly state the conflict in your report (Rule of Conduct 18).

Answer : A

Question 5

Scenario

You are a planner for a city planning department and you have an old friend who runs a planning consulting firm in the same city. Your friend submits a competitive proposal to work as a consultant for your department to you on Friday and while in your office, asks you to be her guest for dinner at a very fancy restaurant on Saturday evening. What might you do if you actually might have some influence in awarding the contract?

AIf it is possible that you might influence the decision about awarding the contract, avoid the potential conflict of interest (Ethical Principles 2 and 3; Rules of Conduct 8, 5, 18). Avoid the conflict by telling your friend that you cannot meet with her socially until after the contract has been awarded, even if the contract will not be discussed during dinner.

BIf it is possible that you might influence the decision about awarding the contract, avoid the potential conflict of interest (Ethical Principles 2 and 3; Rules of Conduct 5, 8, 19). Avoid the conflict by telling your friend that you cannot meet with her socially until after the contract has been awarded, even if the contract will not be discussed during dinner.

Answer : B

Question 6

Scenario

You are a planner in a city that has recently opened a new shelter for homeless people. The shelter opens each evening during the winter and provides a place for people to sleep during the night in dormitory-style rooms with cots. Some community members would like the shelter closed because they feel that the large number of people who congregate on the sidewalks near the shelter as they wait for it to open pose a threat to public safety. Your planning director decides to address these concerns by classifying the shelter as a hotel. The planning director knows that the zoning ordinance specifies that a hotel must provide private sleeping quarters, which the shelter does not. By classifying the shelter as a hotel, the planning director is taking steps to close the shelter based on the ground that it is in violation of the zoning ordinance. Suppose you have reviewed the situation carefully and believe that the director made an unethical decision. What might you do?

ASee the solution below
If the director is a member of the AICP, then you might discuss the situation with the AICP Ethics Officer (Procedures 2 and 3) You may decide to file a charge of unethical conduct with the AICP ethics Officer (Procedure 5).

BSee the solution below
If the director is a member of the AICP, then you might discuss the situation with the AICP Ethics Officer (Procedures 2 and 3) You may decide to file a charge of unethical conduct with the AICP ethics Officer (Procedure 5). Beware that this course of action will probably result in a tense work environment and should only be followed after careful consideration.

Answer : B

Question 7

Scenario

You are a planner in a city that has recently opened a new shelter for homeless people. The shelter opens each evening during the winter and provides a place for people to sleep during the night in dormitory-style rooms with cots. Some community members would like the shelter closed because they feel that the large number of people who congregate on the sidewalks near the shelter as they wait for it to open pose a threat to public safety. Your planning director decides to address these concerns by classifying the shelter as a hotel. The planning director knows that the zoning ordinance specifies that a hotel must provide private sleeping quarters, which the shelter does not. By classifying the shelter as a hotel, the planning director is taking steps to close the shelter based on the ground that it is in violation of the zoning ordinance. Suppose you believe that the planning director has assumed a position that is not politically feasible and consequently will be reversed. What might you do?

ASee the solution below
You might choose to take no action. However, waiting until a higher authority reverses poor or unethical planning decisions is not the best course of action for a professional planner. Also, remember that a professional planner does have a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged (Ethical Principle 1)

BSee the solution below
You might choose to take no action. However, waiting until a higher authority reverses poor or unethical planning decisions is not the best course of action for a professional planner.

Answer : A