Accessibility vs. Predictability: A Small-Town Conundrum
Friday, March 31, 2017
10:30 a.m. - noon MDT
CM | 1.50
E | 1.50
How will the event offer a professionally relevant learning experience for a planner with at least 4 years of experience? One of the advantages of living in a small, mountain community means that everyone knows your name - and access to planners and public officials is often informal. However, this sometimes can create a tenuous ethical situation for planners; developers and other members of the public want predictability assured in the approval process - even when public input is necessary for a final decision by planners or public officials . The session will provide an overview of quasi-judicial process and how pertinent case law has defined ethical boundaries. The session will feature 2-3 examples of ethical conundrums in quasi-judicial situations. Following this discussion, a series of recommendations will be provided.
How does the event meet a specific planning related training objective? The session will focus on the practical application of Rules 8, 9, and 10 of the AICP Code of Ethics. The event is intended to guide attendees through ethical considerations in planning practice - specifically quasi-judicial approvals. Attendees will learn to critically assess ethically tenuous situations and determine the best course of action to ensure ethical conduct.
What are the specific training objectives? What do you want the attendees to learn from this event? Specific training objectives include:
● Overviewing AICP code of ethics rules regarding decision making and deliberation, and the pertinent case law parallels.
● Providing a series of recommendations for use by planners and other officials to maintain ethical integrity of quasi-judicial process.
Shawn Hill, email@example.com