| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 501 | Sam Cleaves, AICP | Thanks for moving this important reform forward! |
| 502 | Eric M. Knott | |
| 503 | Danny Riley | I am currently an MUP student (and a member of APA) and will be graduating this year. I am also currently employed with the Planning and Economic Development Services department of a county in the metropolitan Detroit area. Under the current CM guidelines, I can foresee myself eventually paying and sitting for the AICP exam, but because I work in the public sector and have very limited budgets, I doubt that I would be able to get sent to qualifying events required to obtain the CM credits after my initial certification.
Without significant changes to the current CM system, I believe that the APA is going to find that a lot of young professionals will be in the same boat as myself and will not bother working to renew their AICP after their initial certification.
In order to maintain any sort of credibility as a professional organization APA/AICP has an obligation to its current and future members to make both initial and renewing certifications as affordable as possible to all members (regardless of whether they are employed in the public or private sectors) and to all the agencies that work to provide CM approved courses and events. |
| 504 | Anonymous | |
| 505 | Stacey Boumis | |
| 506 | Anonymous | |
| 507 | Anonymous | I am aware of several instances where the CM fees have been prohbiitive in allowing potential offerings in planning related fields such as transportation and economic development. You should just have a flat fee per conference or traning opportunity, rather than per credit hour.
It seems to me that as CM requirements are part of our professional certification they should be primarily linked to membership fees rather than burden educational providers that might include both planning and non-planning professionals. Plus while my organization can most likely absorb some of these costs, smaller jurisdictions may not fare so well. A strong mission of the national APA should be to ensure its members are the top professionals they can be and the current CM system doesn't seem like it will ultimately accomplish that. Plus it's unclear how exactly all this money is to be used because it doesn't seem like opportunities are being expanded. Judging by this article they're being reduced.
There's no question that APA conference attendance is up tremendously, which is good for networking and general idea sharing but it's often tough to get the intensive level of detail needed for some topics. Additionally we work with architects, engineers, private developers and other non-planners on a daily basis who would be even less interested in participating in these educational opportunities (and important outside interaction with planners) with this fee structure. |
| 508 | Ruth Wallace | Yes, we need fairness, equity, qualitly ed and affordability. I get paid less than $40K and I work for a state gagency whose annual operating budget was cut from $27Million to $6Million. It is difficult for me to get permission to travel to a 3 day APA conference, even if in-state. My continuing ed opportunities are often limited to one day travels with no real allowance for tuition. And, the fact that I am studying for the AICP exam. causes me to pause and think of costs I will be required to incur to maintain credit. |
| 509 | Val John Halford | |
| 510 | Jenny R. Snapp | |
| 511 | Mary Richards Oakley | |
| 512 | Wendy Kellogg | Our planning program has been planning to launch a set of workshops for local planners, and is now reconsidering this because of the cost issues mentioned in the planetizen article. |
| 513 | Gregg Zody | |
| 514 | Larry Smith | |
| 515 | Anonymous | Well stated views from one interested perspective. As a user and client the CM leaves a lot to be desired. I have experience with the Certification Program of the American Fisheries Society and the key to acceptance was broadly counting as credit ,activities a fisheries professional does "routinely" to remain active/current in the profession. |
| 516 | Thomas E. King | AICP/APA member #022916 |
| 517 | Katie Lichtenstein | |
| 518 | Michael Hershman, AICP | |
| 519 | Michael Hershman, AICP | |
| 520 | Eric VanOtteren | |
| 521 | Thomas Purkey | |
| 522 | Craig Vassel AICP | |
| 523 | John T. Spence, PhD, AICP | I am unhappy with the recertification policy as it is making it more difficult for me, a practicing planner, to maintain my certification. The number of classes I must attend has greatly increased my costs. I will be ending my subscription to the APA journal as a result, Further, I have been frustrated to find many state chapter classes are not counted in recertification. Going to the national conference is an additional cost I do not want to incur. I received my AICP in 1984 and was one of the first to recertify under the voluntary program. For the first time since graduate school, I am considering just how much I need my AICP to do my job. |
| 524 | Jayashree Narayana | |
| 525 | Anonymous | |
| 526 | Donald Reinke, AICP | |
| 527 | Barbara Feeney | I believe APA should be making all efforts to keep costs associated with providing AICP-certifiable courses as low as possible, to insure that to the greatest extent possible, a variety of courses are available, from a variety of providers, at affordable prices. |
| 528 | Pamela Weintraub, AICP, PP | |
| 529 | James Potter | AICP should also:
Make the budget for the CM program public,
Respond to questions within 5 business days,
Develop fact sheets that PDOs can use to encourage AICP membership, and
Allow Chapters and Divisions a voice in determining what is an acceptable course. |
| 530 | John I. Trawick, AICP | |
| 531 | Jennifer Leister | |
| 532 | Paul Tronolone | |
| 533 | Sheldon Daisley | Total agreement! We need to have those APA CM organizers resign an real hard working planners take their positions |
| 534 | Andrew Meyer | |
| 535 | Mark Knight | |
| 536 | Jeffrey Thelen | I will not join AICP until changes are made. |
| 537 | Daniel R. Mandelker | Unless the program is changed there will be serious pressures on our planning schools. |
| 538 | Gary D. Logston, AICP | |
| 539 | Heather Kinder Sims | |
| 540 | Noel C. Bowman | |
| 541 | Noel C. Bowman | |
| 542 | Omar Masry | As a young professional, I am dissuaded from considering AICP Certification given this poorly deployed program. |
| 543 | Edward Jepson | |
| 544 | Teresa A. Crean | |
| 545 | Jennifer Zorn | |
| 546 | Daniel Jacobs | I also believe that an graduate courses in planning-related areas should be granted automatic CM credit w/o need for "review". Any AICP member who is trying to balance graduate school and a professional career shouldn't have the justify the quality of their continuing education. |
| 547 | Pattsi Petrie, PhD, AICP | Comments can be viewed on the page containing the paper http://www.planetizen.com/node/29996 |
| 548 | Prof. Tom Angotti | Unfortunately this is not an isolated example of APA's misplaced priorities that favor branding and marketing over the needs of planners and communities. |
| 549 | R. Albert | As a recent graduate, the expense of obtaining 32 CM credits is beyond what my company and I are willing to pay. I will not pursue AICP certification until significant changes are made. |
| 550 | Sam Edwards, AICP | Farness dictates this consideration and change. Costs to planners are a consideration and some will not participate if this change is not made. Present system will backfire and cause loss of membership. |