American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Practice Exam

If an associate planner changes roles from opposing non-residential development to advocating for it, does this possibly violate the AICP Code of Ethics?

1. Definitely

2. Possibly

3. No, as long as there is full disclosure.

4. Not applicable.

The correct answer is: No, as long as there is full disclosure.

In a scenario where an associate planner shifts from opposing non-residential development to supporting it, the AICP Code of Ethics emphasizes the importance of integrity and transparency in professional conduct. Selecting the notion that full disclosure is necessary underscores a crucial principle within the ethical guidelines of the profession. If the planner ensures that all relevant parties are aware of the change in stance, it maintains ethical standards and promotes trust in the planning process. Full disclosure can involve informing stakeholders, clients, and the community about the change in perspective, as well as any reasons for the transition. This openness helps mitigate potential conflicts of interest and reassures the public that decisions are made based on sound planning principles rather than personal gain or bias. Moreover, simply changing an opinion or approach is not inherently a violation of the ethical standards unless it is accompanied by a lack of transparency or a failure to manage conflicts of interest properly. As long as the planner maintains honesty and integrity in their communications and advocacy efforts, they can navigate this role change ethically.