| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 51 | Julie S. Lindner, AICP | The cost to maintain AICP certification and to meet the CM requirements is not worth the meager benefit it brings. I believe the CM structure will result in fewer opportunities for learning because so many providers will opt out due to the cost. |
| 52 | Jennifer Hurley | Planners need equitable access to a broad array of planning education providers. |
| 53 | Anonymous | I believe the fees are a large part of the problem of getting a sufficient number of easily accessible providers of CM |
| 54 | Anonymous | |
| 55 | Rodion Iwanczuk | AICP member |
| 56 | Alison Kendall AICP | I agree the CM program has had the unfortunate effect of limiting continuing education offerings as well as complicating the process of documenting CM activities. The AIA CM program seems like a good model, although the range of relevant continuing education topics and providers is even wider for the field of planning. |
| 57 | Katherine Wyrosdick | |
| 58 | Katherine Wyrosdick | |
| 59 | Stephen Gunnells | |
| 60 | Stewart Chesler | I support these comments. I would also like to people get waivers if there aren't classes available that relate to their area of practice like transit planning. |
| 61 | Al Salzman | |
| 62 | Leon Vignes | |
| 63 | Martin J. Jacobson, AICP | |
| 64 | Pete Fritz | |
| 65 | K. Schleick | I agree with the person who said: The cost to maintain AICP certification and to meet the CM requirements is not worth the meager benefit it brings. I believe the CM structure will result in fewer opportunities for learning because so many providers will opt out due to the cost.
Moreover, I believe the number of credits required are too high, there are too few opportunities to earn the credits, and the credits are available only at a very substantial cost that most of us can not afford. In contrast, the AIA program has proven so successful that most people can fulfill all of their necessary credits by *free* lunch & learns sponsored by manufacturers and by reading articles in the member magazine and filing a low-cost registration form. |
| 66 | Cynthia Sabatini | This is not the first time APA has heard from me on this issue, nor will it be the last time until APA changes how it awards CM credits to education providers. Not only are the providers being harmed, so are the AICP qualified planners who cannot afford to junket to Chicago or D.C., or pay well over $1000 and take leave time to attend a national conference. The APA has repeatedly exhibited a bias against a large number of West Coast education providers without basis in fact. It is time to remove the bias and create a market-based program that will prevent the excessive pricing for the APA "approved" providers. |
| 67 | Suzanne Hicks | |
| 68 | Ed E. Elam, AICP | Given the diversity of planning specialities and individualized training needs of each, these suggestions are not beyond reason. I hope any changes will help reduce the paperwork and research burden placed on individual chapters and their PDOs. |
| 69 | Anonymous | |
| 70 | David M. Haight | |
| 71 | David C. Birchler, AICP | AICP has been too slow to certify its own offerings (CD-ROM training packages, for example) and now threatens the many high quality university and sister organization programs available to us as professionals. I am concerned that the way the system is being implemented, organizations like AIA, ASLA, ULI and others will no longer want to partner with their planning brothers. As president of a consulting firm that routinely assembles "teams" of allied professionals for our projects, I believe this to be a flawed system. |
| 72 | David Fowler, AICP | I would also add that AICP membership costs, combined with the expense of maintaining certification through the offered courses are often paid out-of-pocket by members whose employers either cannot or will not pay such costs. These costs are both onerous and disproportionately paid out-of-pocket by planners who work in the public sector. |
| 73 | Cynthia van Empel | Just another APA moneymaking shakedown--APA has again turned something good into something tawdry. |
| 74 | Anonymous | |
| 75 | Thomas L. Shevlin | |
| 76 | Wayne P. Grinnell, AICP | I agree that for individuals to comply with the education requirements is extremely difficult and expensive. I am personally providing funds to assist local planners in complying. I avail myself of the training. But for serious learning, I attend real courses, and not APA functions. |
| 77 | Donna Miller | |
| 78 | Nicole Allen | |
| 79 | Courtney Owen | This isn't the only area of the code of ethics that is being violated under our current leadership. Something must be done. |
| 80 | Karen Pinzolo | |
| 81 | Joanna Oliver | |
| 82 | Lynne Pike DiSanto, AICP | |
| 83 | Anonymous | |
| 84 | kate butler | |
| 85 | Frank J. Popper | |
| 86 | Jeffrey R. Riegner, AICP | |
| 87 | Roberto Espinoza | I agree with the petition. |
| 88 | Laura Buhl | APA/AICP should do everything in their power to make sure university-based continuing education classes survive. A brief conference session with no work or involvement on the part of the audience is simply no comparison to an in-depth class that requires reading and homework. |
| 89 | Matthew Bolster | The CM scheme as currently conducted is unfair to AICP members who work in areas peripheral to planning, such as housing and community development. Valuable courses such as real estate development have few AICP attendees and therefore providers have no incentive to register and pay fees. Yet who would argue that knowledge of real estate development and housing is not important to planning? Without it, there would be nothing to plan. I also agree that the fee scheme discourages multi-day, intensive courses. That is entirely counterproductive. I could have met almost my whole CM requirement with the expensive week-long course in multifamily housing development that I took last summer, but instead I get no CM credit whatsoever. |
| 90 | Matthew Bolster | The CM scheme as currently conducted is unfair to AICP members who work in areas peripheral to planning, such as housing and community development. Valuable courses such as real estate development have few AICP attendees and therefore providers have no incentive to register and pay fees. Yet who would argue that knowledge of real estate development and housing is not important to planning? Without it, there would be nothing to plan. I also agree that the fee scheme discourages multi-day, intensive courses. That is entirely counterproductive. I could have met almost my whole CM requirement with the expensive week-long course in multifamily housing development that I took last summer, but instead I get no CM credit whatsoever. |
| 91 | Benjamin Limmer, AICP | Cosigned! |
| 92 | Anonymous | |
| 93 | Todd Muck | |
| 94 | Tina Gillman | |
| 95 | Taghi Arshami | |
| 96 | Anonymous | |
| 97 | Kevin Smith | |
| 98 | Anonymous | |
| 99 | Jeffry P. Carpenter | I am a long-time AICP member (and an AIP member before that) and a former section president. This CM requirement could be a very constructive measure if it strove to cultivate rather than ignore the high quality resources that already exist--and, for the most part, remain the only feasible and available resources. |
| 100 | Christopher W. Dunn, AICP | As a planner I wish I paid my dues to a professional association that was focused on helping its members with their issues as much as it is focused its own image in the reflecting pool of social justice and narcissism. In September of 2007 Paul Farmer stood 10 feet from me and told our Kansas Chapter meeting that it was our obligation to be loyal to APA - the organization - not our values or ethics or that pesky Constitution. In that same half hour he told us only a few “malcontents” had expressed dissatisfaction with the AICP CM program. APA is beginning to remind me of the Soviet Union. They just have to implode soon. |