American Planning Association AICP Exam Practice Test Instant Access

Question 1

Scenario

The local YMCA is proposing to build a swimming pool next to their existing facility in your medium-sized town. You are a planner and must review the development proposal. The wife of one of the senior planners is the YMCA director. The husband of the planning director is the Chair of the Board of Directors for the YMCA. Everybody on the YMCA board is a family friend to both the senior planner and the planning director. What might you do?

AYou have a job to do, and you are not tainted with the conflict of interest. It is important to be as open and transparent in review of the proposal as you would be with any other proposal. You are fortunate in that, according to the scenario, you have not been asked to favor the proposal. Proceed with your analysis and make a recommendation on the proposal as usual. You might disclose the potential conflicts that do exist in your report. You might have your work reviewed by an outside consultant rather than by the planning director. You might ask that all those personally involved in the situation recuse themselves from making the final decision about the proposal. Your only conflict might be in displeasing your boss. If you are going to shade the results in order to please your boss, then you have a problem.

BYou have a job to do, and you are not tainted with the conflict of interest. It is important to be as open and transparent in review of the proposal as you would be with any other proposal. You are fortunate in that, according to the scenario, you have not been asked to favor the proposal. Proceed with your analysis and make a recommendation on the proposal as usual. You might disclose the potential conflicts that do exist in your report. You might have your work reviewed by an outside consultant rather than by the planning director.

Answer : A

Question 2

Scenario

You work as a city planner in Town X. You recently accepted additional planning employment in Town Y, which is about 15 miles away and in the next county. Towns X and Y are similar in many respects. As a consultant for Town Y, you recommend a 50-foot buffer around a lake to protect water quality. Town Y is about to take action on this recommendation. However, in town X there are no buffer regulations and substantial residential development has been proposed to include construction to within 10 feet of a lake. The mayor and the council are very supportive of the proposed development, but a lake conservation group is demanding a buffer of at least 50-feet around the lake. What might you do?

AFirst, understand that the moonlighting should have been clearly explained to the primary and secondary employers and approved in writing (Rule of Conduct 4). Full written disclosure to both towns prior to accepting work in Town Y should have said that there might be conflict. Planners should try to foresee consequences, and this situation is a logical consequence of working in two very similar communities. Even with full written disclosure before beginning to work for Town Y, as soon as the potential for conflict became apparent, you should have furnished a second written disclosure to both employers and received written permission to proceed (Rules of Conduct 2, 7). However, a planner should not advocate for two opposing positions simultaneously. (Rule of Conduct 8) So unless there is a very real difference between the two situations, such as a different geologic structure of the lakes, you should remove yourself from doing one job or the other. To continue in both positions and allow the conflicting recommendations to proceed will likely diminish your reputation and effectiveness in both communities (Ethical Principles 6, 8).

BFirst, understand that the moonlighting should have been clearly explained to the primary and secondary employers and approved in writing (Rule of Conduct 4). Full written disclosure to both towns prior to accepting work in Town Y should have said that there might be conflict. Planners should try to foresee consequences, and this situation is a logical consequence of working in two very similar communities. Even with full written disclosure before beginning to work for Town Y, as soon as the potential for conflict became apparent, you should have furnished a second written disclosure to both employers and received written permission to proceed (Rules of Conduct 3, 4). However, a planner should not advocate for two opposing positions simultaneously. (Rule of Conduct 3) So unless there is a very real difference between the two situations, such as a different geologic structure of the lakes, you should remove yourself from doing one job or the other. To continue in both positions and allow the conflicting recommendations to proceed will likely diminish your reputation and effectiveness in both communities (Ethical Principles 2, 3).

Answer : B

Question 3

Scenario

You are responsible for recommending contracts to the city council. Your immediate supervisor has asked you to prepare a recommendation for a large contract for an individual you know is a good friend of your supervisor. After reviewing the contract, you conclude that the contract amount is not commensurate with the scope of work provided. You believe the contract is a waste of taxpayer dollars if it were to be granted. What might you do if your supervisor pressures you for a favorable recommendation?

AIf you have any doubt about your conclusion, you might present the situation to a mentor or to a planner who is not involved in the situation (in another jurisdiction, for example) to discuss it. (Rule of Conduct 18) Planners are responsible to their employers; you might go to your supervisor with clear information on which your analysis was based, such as prices asked by other consultants for similar work, and point out your concerns. Your supervisor may appreciate your honesty and professionalism and accept your recommendation. Should you be required to falsify your recommendation, other options might be to ''blow the whistle'' or to go to an attorney. If supervisor is member of AICP, file an ethics charge against your supervisor (Procedure 5) or ask for an advisory ruling about your own conduct (Procedure 3)

BIf you have any doubt about your conclusion, you might present the situation to a mentor or to a planner who is not involved in the situation (in another jurisdiction, for example) to discuss it. (Rule of Conduct 16) Planners are responsible to their employers; you might go to your supervisor with clear information on which your analysis was based, such as prices asked by other consultants for similar work, and point out your concerns.

Answer : A

Question 4

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 have no influence about awarding the contract?

AYou should worry about the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if the invitation for dinner is not intended to enhance your friend's chances of being awarded the contract (Rules of Conduct 5, 8, 19) Because you have no influence about the decision to award the contract, which would include having no professional contact with the decision-makers, you might have dinner with your friend, but it might be safer to postpone the dinner until after the contract has been awarded.

BYou should worry about the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if the invitation for dinner is not intended to enhance your friend's chances of being awarded the contract (Rules of Conduct 6, 8, 18) Because you have no influence about the decision to award the contract, which would include having no professional contact with the decision-makers, you might have dinner with your friend, but it might be safer to postpone the dinner until after the contract has been awarded.

Answer : A

Question 5

Scenario

You are a planner in a community with a new sign ordinance that prohibits banners from being strung across the road. The ordinance was adopted in response to several unattractive advertising banners that had frequently been strung across local roads and often become entangled with electrical wires. On your way to work one morning, you see that a community group has strung a banner across the main street that advertises an upcoming charity event that will generate thousands of dollars for needy families. You know that the money is greatly needed and that local officials and residents support the event. What might you do in the long run?

AIf you feel that the ordinance is inappropriate for your community, you might decide to begin the process of modifying the language of the ordinance.

BIf you feel that the ordinance is inappropriate for your community, you might decide to begin the process of modifying the language of the ordinance. With the approval of your supervisors, you might work with the city attorney to draft new language for the ordinance.

CIf you feel that the ordinance is inappropriate for your community, you might decide to begin the process of modifying the language of the ordinance. With the approval of your supervisors, you might work with the city attorney to draft new language for the ordinance and place the item on the agenda for discussion at the next planning commission meeting

Answer : C

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 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

Question 7

Scenario

AYou might gather additional information about the situation to be sure you fully understand it. You might find out if alternative locations for the shelter are feasible and if the shelter operators are aware of these alternatives. For example, you might locate a space where people may wait indoors until the shelter opens. You also might talk to the planning director about the situation so that you understand the reasoning behind the decision. You base your next move on your findings

BYou might gather additional information about the situation to be sure you fully understand it. You might find out if alternative locations for the shelter are feasible and if the shelter operators are aware of these alternatives. You also might talk to the planning director about the situation so that you understand the reasoning behind the decision.

Answer : A

American Planning Association American Institute of Certified Planners Exam Practice Test