AICP Online Practice Questions and Answers

Correct Answer: B

Correct Answer: D

Correct Answer: C

Correct Answer: A

First, you should clarify all relevant policies and regulations. Suppose the relevant policies are in conflict or are difficult to interpret. You might ask the planning director the city attorney for assistance in defining the situation. Second, determine

how the boundary was established and study how it might be shifted.

Suppose the data that are available for the analysis are unreliable, inconsistent, or out-of- date. You might ask the planning director, another planner, or another source (such as the state GIS library) for assistance in obtaining better data. You

might verify the accuracy of the data you collect by learning how it was developed and how recently it was developed because sometimes data are in error and natural conditions do change over time (Ethical Principle 1)

Correct Answer: B

Correct Answer: D

A. development on a site not used or underused due to real or perceived environmental issues

B. describes a type of sprawl where new development is not contiguous with pre-existing development but occurs some distance from it

C. development on a site never developed before

Correct Answer: A

First, 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).

Correct Answer: C

Correct Answer: A

If 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.

Correct Answer: A

First, 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).