AICP Exam Dumps : American Institute of Certified Planners Exam

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.

As 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