Planetizen resident ethicist Carol D. Barrett, FAICP, images a scenario that highlights the distinction between citizen and planner, and where sometimes it's inappropriate to cross the line between the two.
Imagine you are a city planner reviewing an application for a single-family home in an environmentally sensitive area. The project will require approval by the Planning Commission. You note that the applicant included a number of form letters in support of the project, with each letter individually signed. As you flip through the stack, you noticed the name of another city employee in the same department. This employee conducts plan checks when projects are submitted for building permits.
You are surprised to see that an employee would publicly support a project over which he has some degree of autonomy in determining compliance with provisions of the building code. However, this employee works in a different division and you don’t know his supervisor's policies on these matters.
You drop by to chat with the supervisor. She explains her policy: city employees retain all of the same rights of citizenship as any other resident. They are free to petition their government in the form of letters supporting any cause in which they believe. Further, she believes that reviewing construction plans under the Building Code is a very cut and dried matter, and when you eliminate personal judgement, there isn't a practical way to assist an applicant, even on a project you like.
You take all this in, thinking how different the policies are for various employees within your own department. Planners are cautioned to avoid taking any public position on a project that may come before the planning staff for review. Letters of support can too easily be construed as approval granted without the necessary customary detailed review. And you think the same could apply to review for compliance with the building code. What if reviewer simply over-looked some issues in plan check?
The next morning you get a phone call from the plan check supervisor who was apparently having second thoughts about what she told you and she decided to touch base with the employee. She tells you that the letter was actually signed by the employee's father who has the same name. So the supervisor was apparently concerned enough to request additional information.
But problems remain when one department has two very different policies. Planners must avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, as set forth in the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct:
2.c) We shall avoid a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in accepting assignments from clients or employers. In your opinion, writing a letter of support for a project that you have to review would constitute creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This example illustrates two ethical dilemmas, and the corresponding actions that should be taken:
- How should planners treat requests to take sides on matters that will come before them for review? The answer is straightforward, as laid out in the AICP Code of Ethics. Planners must avoid a conflict of interest. Now that the issue has come up, it represents a perfect teaching opportunity at the next monthly planning staff meeting. Signing petitions, writing letters of support, or testifying in a public hearing can all jeopardize an applicant's right to an impartial review. So, it is true that planners have their rights as a citizen diminished in the interest of a fair and open decision-making process. But that's a pretty good trade-off.
- The department has internally inconsistent policies. Your concern for ethical conduct shouldn't be limited to the corridor where the planning staff sits. The subject should be brought up at a Division Head meeting. You should invite the supervisor to jointly raise the concept of a unified ethical policy.
Pennsylvania Mall Conversion Bill Passes House
If passed, the bill would promote the adaptive reuse of defunct commercial buildings.
World's Largest Wildlife Overpass In the Works in Los Angeles County
Caltrans will soon close half of the 101 Freeway in order to continue construction of the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing near Agoura Hills in Los Angeles County.
U.S. Supreme Court: California's Impact Fees May Violate Takings Clause
A California property owner took El Dorado County to state court after paying a traffic impact fee he felt was exorbitant. He lost in trial court, appellate court, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Then the U.S. Supreme Court acted.
California Grid Runs on 100% Renewable Energy for Over 9 Hours
The state’s energy grid was entirely powered by clean energy for some portion of the day on 37 out of the last 45 days.
New Forecasting Tool Aims to Reduce Heat-Related Deaths
Two federal agencies launched a new, easy-to-use, color-coded heat warning system that combines meteorological and medical risk factors.
AI Traffic Management Comes to Dallas-Fort Worth
Several Texas cities are using an AI-powered platform called NoTraffic to help manage traffic signals to increase safety and improve traffic flow.
City of Costa Mesa
Licking County
Barrett Planning Group LLC
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research
Mpact Transit + Community
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research
Tufts University, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy & Planning
City of Universal City TX
ULI Northwest Arkansas
Write for Planetizen
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.