Scenario
An oil company is interested in building a refinery on several thousand acres of waterfront property that the company owns. The general plan classifies this area as recreational and residential. The oil company files a re-zoning application to change this area to a heavy industrial classification. The planning director opposes the rezoning amendment stating that the scenic area is a valuable natural resource. Assume that the planning agency acted legally in all respects (proper notice, etc.). However, the county commissioners approve the amendment.
A group of residents who live near the proposed refinery site take the case to court and subpoena the planning director to testify. The planning director provides some information to the citizens’ group as they prepare their case and also testifies truthfully in court about the value of the property to the community. Under the AICP Code of Ethics, all the following are true about the behavior of the planning director EXCEPT:
A . The director was acting in an ethically responsible manner in trying to protect the integrity of the natural environment.
B . The director should not have testified in court. The Code of Ethics requires planners to accept the decisions of their employers.
C . The director served the public interest by providing information to citizens preparing their case.
D . The director exhibited a concern for the long-range consequences of the proposed land use changes.
Answer: B
Explanation:
See Ethical Principle 1, Rules of Conduct 1 and 25. Members of AICP must comply with the law.