Article: ethics board fines former city planner

[JNA]

That was the headline from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
http://www.ajc.com/printedition/cont...cxntlid=inform

HIGHLIGHT:

Atlanta has a policy, known as the "cooling off" period, that prohibits former city workers from bringing business before the municipality for 12months after the person's employment with the government has ended.

City officials said HE twice represented developers in subdivision applications he previously reviewed as a senior planner for Atlanta's Department of Planning and Community Development.

he was unaware of the policy. He wrote in a letter to the city that he didn't see any conflict-of-interest because he wasn't "in possession of any proprietary knowledge."

Does your community have similar rules ?

Probably was not a member of AICP - Do you see this as a violation of Code of Ethics - Section B. Rules of Conduct # 3 ?
http://www.planning.org/ethics/conduct.html

[hilldweller]

The way the code is written seems to leave much up to interpretation IMO.

[Chet]

My opinion, even if you are not AICP, you should live by the code of ethics. They guy deserved to be fined.

[H]

The article says he was "fired" after 3 years with the Dept. I wonder why. There might be a lot more to this story.

[Tide]

South Carolina State Statues have a section regarding a cooling off period. It is written fairly vague (probably by the lawyers who need it to be vague). It mentions you may not present an idea counter to an idea you presented within 1 year of leaving a public position.

[mendelman]

Represented someone for a plan he had reviewed when working for the City - ethics violation, fine him.

Represented someone for a plan that was in the process when he worked for the City, but he had no contact with it - no ethics violation.

Granted, this is just my opinion.

[A4J]

I thought it was common knowledge that regardless of any written rules, the rule of thumb is that you "cool off" for one year.

[curbgrass]

I would like first to consider the particulars of the item. Criticism of the representative's motives (as natural as it comes to us to question these things at the outset) should be seen as secondary to the value of the proposal to the community at hand.

The link is bad for me, unfortunately.

[Paul Zucker]

We may not have the entire story. But from what we have it is an ethics violation.