It is my belief that the public perception of what constitutes ethical behavior and professional conduct has shifted dramatically. While the public may be discouraged about the lack of ethical conduct, at the same time, they are setting increasingly high standards by which public officials are judged and found wanting. The planning profession is caught in an era in which our definition of conflict of interest, for example, is not adequate to meet the current standards set by our citizenry. Consider the planner in Tennessee who, on his own time, did consulting work for Walmart in another state. The decision to accept private engagements only outside of one's planning sphere of influence is consistent with the AICP Advisory Ruling that: "A planning staff member must take no employment outside of official duties unless such employment creates no conflict with those duties either in the interests to be served or in competition for time and energy."
However, the local residents opposing the Walmart contacted the Tennessee planner's employer and newspaper arguing that accepting any money from Walmart (presumably the "Dark Side" in this scenario) would prejudice the planner in favor of big box retailers should any seek to ever locate within his community. The newspaper took up the cause, and the planner was publicly admonished even though he had previously reported and cleared this consulting engagement with the same City Manager who then administered the public chastisement. As noted above, the rules of the game have changed.
What are the new rules and what impact will they have on the practice of planning?
This means that a simple request for a modest tax abatement to secure renovation of abandoned historic downtown office buildings into residential units will encounter public expectations to address problems of housing affordability and homelessness. While such expectations may have the effect, in some cases, of eliminating the feasibility of a project; in other cases it will require reworking the assumptions and numbers in order to produce the desired public results. Citizens expect that the developer will consider and evaluate the impact of his or her project on the entire community. And if there are problems with that community wide impact, the developer will be expected to mitigate those problems.
Failure of planners to understand and respond to these expectations may result in a view that planning is irrelevant to building good communities. The role of the planner as the dispassionate proponent of technical results is becoming increasingly untenable.
Planning itself is already transforming its work with citizens in the form of neighborhood collaborative planning which gets at the heart of citizens understanding and taking responsibility for their own role in solving community problems. Michelle Gregory, AICP, recently authored PAS Memo (February, 1997) which makes this case. Collaborative planning skills and behaviors are not fully covered by the AICP Code and they need to be.
This is particularly true when considering the specific conflict of interest provisions of the AICP Code. A planner is directed not to perform work if there is an actual or apparent conflict of interest (or an appearance of impropriety) without full written disclosure. This seems to be fuzzy logic. Is it true that you make a conflict of interest go away by disclosing it? In fact, the AICP/APA Ethical Principles (which apply to all APA members but are not enforceable) state that planning commissioners can't vote when there is a conflict unless it has been disclosed and expressly authorized by a court with jurisdiction to rule on ethical matters. That seems to represent a higher standard of conduct.
Of course the AICP Code precludes working on a project if there is any direct personal or financial gain. But that standard is no longer perceived as adequate by some members of the community. Consider the case of a Planning Commissioner who wished to pursue a conflict of interest charge against an elected official for appointing a member to the planning commission who espoused a development oriented perspective on all matters instead of making public statements regarding the need to base decisions on the facts. There is little in the APA or the AICP Code on which to base an accusation of unethical conduct. However, the State Legislature had recently adopted conflict of interest prohibitions which seemed to be much more consistent with public thinking and the Attorney General had already told the planning commissioner that he felt there was a strong case to be made against the elected official who made the appointment.
Consultant planners are being held, in some cases, to an almost unattainable standard of ethics as the definition of conflict of interest has somehow broadened beyond the notion of a direct or indirect financial benefit to include the idea that someone's work can be contaminated by contact with those representing opposite opinions. The tack is being taken that a planner who works for the private sector cannot be "trusted" with public planning. The end result of such limited thinking in some communities is that only public sector oriented private planners are seen as pure enough to participate in public planning projects. Such an attitude severely limits the expertise that can be made available to the local decision-makers; but seems to satisfy some of the neighborhood leaders.
To some extent, planners have created this problem by becoming such aggressive advocates for their client's interest (which may or may not be the public interest) that the community feels it cannot trust the advice. In effect, the planners' good opinion is viewed as a commodity which can be purchased. And while planners can claim that such is not the case; the fact is that in terms of public perception, we may have sunk to the level of lawyers. Every criminal/planning project is entitled to the best possible defense regardless of the actual merits of the case.
Nor are public sector planners immune to the same challenges to their credibility. Consider the case of the local planner working to serve the public interest by spending as little money as possible to acquire land necessary to establish a habitat preserve. If the planner seeks to use the "ends justify the means" value orientation, the planner may be tempted to seriously underestimate the value of property in order to spend less money to acquire it. Public planners have confessed in the past to being more flexible in their standards of ethical conduct to confer benefits to the environment and those who lack formal organization or influence.
Consultant planners can no longer assume a mantle of objectivity in the presentation of their work. The community is likely to distrust their work simply based on who pays the bill. As the public sees it,
The most likely impact on the profession is the need to offer expertise in how to use the results of the analysis; not just offering the results of the analyses alone. In this vision of the future, the public plays a stronger role in defining its interest than does the "professional." This evolution may have impact on the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Communities must develop new tools and strategies to being people and institutions together to plan for the future. Use of non-representative decision-making tools (such as Planning Commissioners) will become less viable. Small, representative Task Forces coming together to work collaboratively with citizens is the most likely long term scenario for future problem solving. Planners will need a new set of ethical principles to address issues of trust and reliability when negotiations with affected parties constitute a primary strategy for solving problems.
Will a re-examination of the Code solve most of the underlying ethical conundrums? Of course not. While applying to all AICP planners, the AICP Code does not cover all aspects of ethical personal and professional conduct. Each planner brings to the job a personal sense of values which provide the framework to which the AICP Code is added. When people engage in energetic debate about the true meaning of the AICP Code, what they are often addressing are the differences in their underlying sense of values. For example, if I value preservation of natural environmental features and became a planner to promote that value, I will find little common ground with planners who seek to provide new neighborhoods if that means the loss of unique elements of the natural environment. What one planner will view as reasonable trade-offs, another will view as selling out. Deeply held personal values cannot be changed or realigned as a result of passing the AICP exam and paying dues to join.
If so much of our conduct as planners is governed by factors other than the AICP Code, why even bother with the Code? The present Code (written by practitioners and academics), supplemented by Advisory Rulings drafted by the Executive Director of APA and adopted by the AICP Ethics Committee, represents reasoned judgments about the most desirable course of action given competing alternatives. In some cases it establishes a hierarchy of values that should govern conduct. For example, protection of the natural environment is identified as a specific responsibility to the public as are excellence of environmental designs and conservation of the heritage of the built environment. Sometimes it is possible to accommodate all of those objectives within the context of a new subdivision; more often it is not. And the Code also recognizes that some elements of the Code conflict with one another. For example, the need to respect the confidentiality of some information may conflict with the principle of providing complete information. The Code acknowledges these conflicts and points out they often arise from the competing values we hold as a democratic society.
The most valuable aspects of the Code are:
"Where you stand depends upon where you sit."
Planners are viewed as being no different from anyone else and will only report those facts helpful to the applicant, not necessarily those critical to the decision-making process. Citizens see themselves as being able to contribute to the information base used to formulate public policy. Naturally, citizen generated data is pure, reliable, and more valuable than anything produced by a "consultant." No bias there.
Carol is a past member of the AICP Ethics Committee and the Joint APA/AICP Ethics Awareness Committee. She served on the 1978 Committee, chaired by Jerry Kaufman, which drafted the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Carol works for the City of Austin's Planning, and Environmental Conservation Services Department.
4 Muir Lane
Austin, TX 78746