Is anyone else feeling less than fulfilled by the CM opportunities out there? I just finished my 2011-2012 reporting period:
As far as I can tell, there are 4 primary sources of free CM:
- APA itself (First Tuesdays offers 15 hrs currently, plus 18 hrs worth of AICP symposia and other free "teaser" events) - events tend to be very Chicago policy centric
- the Utah/Ohio chapter sessions (which are actually quite interesting and can cover law and ethics.. but are currently only offering 9 hrs total across all of their active, approved choices) - very good, but not a whole lot of them and not all relevant
- Sustainable City Network (now offering 3 points) - good and relevant, but not a whole lot is actually cross-registered
- Vita Nuova (now not offering) - currently not offering
I fulfilled my requirements in the 2011-2012 cycle the following way:
- 14 hrs PTS course (required travel and hotel)
- 1.5 hrs local APA chapter lecture
- 8.5 hrs free distance learning (4.5 Utah/Ohio webinars, 2 SCN webinars, 2 APA First Tuesdays)
- 8 hrs self-reported (all AIA, ITE, and USGBC-CM-approved courses not cross-registered with APA)
In the end, I was able to get all of my points except for ethics in areas that touch on my areas of practice, but it was a bit of a struggle, and, frankly, I didn't learn a whole lot I didn't already know.
I'm really wondering why more ITE, ASCE, ICE, USGBC and AIA events aren't cross-registered (I do have a second professional license). USGBC stuff pertaining to planning and the ND standard should be available for credits, everything the ITE does is relevant to transport planners, and a lot of ASCE and AIA stuff is really about planning and should be cross-registered.
I know that APA's stock refrain is 'we can't force people to register with us' but the fact is, where non-planning organizations like ITE, ASCE, ICE, USGBC/GBCI and AIA offer planning instruction to their own members and then effectively exclude planners from them, then we're effectively encouraging non-planners to play planner... and that is something APA, as our representatives, should be doing something about. Perhaps they need to take a more active role in encouraging other our peer professional organizations to cross-register their credits. It's worth noting that virtually ALL relevant USGB/GBCI, AIA, ITE, ICE, and ASCE courses ARE cross-registered with each other.. just not with the APA... so it's not like they're intentionally trying to protect their own respective professions from each other (architects, engineers, transport planners). It's just that APA doesn't have enough profile with them for them to bother.
Anybody have any thoughts?