To view, print or download responses To download the responses to the CPC’s questionnaire, open the file as described immediately above and then save it to your hard drive while you are in Adobe Acrobat Reader. The responses are in PDF files, each 100,000 to 170,000 bytes large. You need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view or print these files. There's a link in the top frame to get the latest version (5.0+). |
This guide to the candidates for each seat at stake on the APA Board and AICP Commission offers a look at their record when they previously served on the APA Board, AICP Commission, or Chapter Presidents Council (CPC), as well as their position statements and their responses to the CPC’s questionnaire. It is only fair to hold candidates accountable for their actions and positions. We have only the greatest respect for each candidate’s love for the profession and APA/AICP. We recognize that there is room for a wide variety of views within the organization, illustrated by the fact that we have recommended, in previous elections, all of the candidates running for APA President–Elect this year.
While perusing the responses to the CPC questionnaire, you will may notice that the candidates we recommend do not agree on everything while most of their opponents from the APA/AICP establishment speak with a single voice.
After reading the questions the CPC asks (and, if you wish, the candidates’ answers), take this Quick Quiz on the CPC’s agenda
Candidates named are those recommended here. Click on a name to | ||||||
| All APA members vote in the contests in yellow boxes | Best APA Candidates to Reform APA | Best AICP Candidates to Reform AICP | ||||
| President–Elect (ALL APA members vote in both races) |
|
| ||||
| At–Large (APA only) |
| No such seat in AICP | ||||
| At–Large focused (APA only) |
| No such seat in AICP | ||||
| Region 1 |
|
| ||||
| Region 5 |
|
| ||||
| Region 6 |
|
| ||||
| Results will be announced on April 15 at the APA Annual Meeting | ||||||
We certainly appreciate the effort the CPC took to collect and distribute these responses. We were disappointed that the questions focused solely on internal matters. To test your reading comprehension, take this quick quiz:
The questions the Chapter Presidents Council (CPC) asked of the candidates, suggest that the CPC: [select one answer]
Has little faith in members to pursue continuing education opportunities without the threat of expulsion from AICP (i.e. the “mandatory continuing education” addressed in Question 1)
Wants to place people (heads of the CPC, Divisions Council, Students Council, Fellows of AICP) on the APA Board of Directors that APA members did not elect directly
Is acting like a shadow APA Board and shadow AICP Commission
Wants greater control over who is admitted to the College of Fellows of AICP
Doesn’t understand Roberts Rules of Order (which has always allowed the AICP — and APA — President to vote only when it would make a difference in the outcome)
Appears to care more about internal political matters than building a climate in which we can practice sound, ethical, inclusionary, smart planning
All of the above
None of the above
Click here for correct answer
All APA members are eligible to vote in the first four contests.
A genuinely fascinating contest since we have recommended all four candidates in previous elections, finding them preferable to their opposition. But when they are matched against each other, the choice is easy because one stands heads and shoulders above the others (well, at least figuratively — he is the shortest candidate in this contest).
Gary Johnson offers that rare combination of insight, foresight, and fiscal responsibility that APA needs at its helm. His position statement and responses to the CPC’s Questionnaire show that he has the best grasp on the external and internal issues that confront APA and planners today. Among the four candidates, he alone recognizes that APA cannot continue to ignore issues that confront the nation’s inner cities and inner–ring suburbs. He along places substance above style. And it was during his tenure as co–editor of the Journal of APA that the Journal began to include more pragmatic articles of relevance to practicing planners. The awards he has received for his work reflect the high quality of his work product, his dedication to advancing the art and science of planning practice, and his extensive participation in planning practice. Gary certainly has the most solid grasp of the four candidates on fiscal issues — which is extremely important during this recession.
We greatly respect all three of Gary’s opponents, but they all come up short compared to Gary (pun intended). Of Gary’s three opponents, Dennis Gordon is the clearly the most sick and tired of all the internal APA politics and would like to move forward in dealing with the outside world.. He is the most rational and prudent of Gary’s three opponents.
In 1998 we recommended Mary Kay Peck for an at–large seat of the APA Board. During these past four years, her judgment and positions have been a constant disappointment. She should be held accountable for her support of the lamentable process used to hire the newest Executive Director and her support of the imprudent fiscal practices of the past four years. She should be held accountable for her poor judgment in trying to get the APA Board of Directors to intervene in the Growing SmartSM products when APA’s contract with H.U.D. explicitly stated that the APA Board is not involved in approving or disapproving the work of the delicately–balanced Smart GrowthSM Consortium. We recognize her as an individual of integrity, who has exercised poor judgment far too many times while on the APA Board. Based on her record while an APA Director, we fear that she simply lacks the sound judgment needed to lead APA through difficult financial and political times.
We really like Roger Hedrick on personal basis and his responses to our questions when he ran for AICP President–Elect in 1996 convinced us to recommend him. We have never been as disappointed in someone’s performance on the job as we have with Roger. As AICP President, he did a 180 degree turnaround, supporting licensing of planners and requiring mandatory continuing education credits to remain a member of AICP. He claims to listen to the members, but kept pushing mandatory continuing education credits even though random–sample AICP membership surveys showed that most of us members oppose it. His current position statement is quite disingenuous when he claims that as AICP President, the Commission did more with less and did not have to raise dues. When Roger took office, AICP was enjoying a financial windfall created by the dues paid by the 1,000+ new members joining each year since the mid–1990s. Unfortunately, Roger’s AICP Commission continued to spend freely and set up the difficult financial times AICP faces today.
Another easy choice. Daniel Lauber has exercised leadership both within APA/AICP and as a planner (and land–use attorney) who has changed the way we plan today:
 | His 1974 PAS Report, The Hearing Examiner in Zoning Administration continues to serve as the guide for jurisdictions that wish to use zoning hearing examiners. His 1975 PAS Report, Zoning for Family and Group Care Facilities, provided the foundation for cities to change their zoning treatment of group homes and halfway houses. His subsequent work as chair of the American Bar Association’s Subcommittee on Zoning for Group Homes and Halfway Houses, as primary author of APA’s amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Edmonds case, and his work as author of APA’s two Policy Guides on Zoning for Community Residences have again set the standard for cities to bring their zoning into compliance with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1989. |
| His work to preserve affordable housing in the face of condo–mania in the late 1970s resulted in a PAS report plus two appearances as an expert witness before Congressional committees, as well as an appearance on 60 Minutes. The technical assistance and consulting services he provided throughout the country led to many cities adopting ordinances that limited conversions to meet natural demand and preserve affordable rental housing. |
| He has pioneered “socially–informed planning” and wrote Oak Park’s Comprehensive Plan 1979, which a PAS Memo praised as a model policy plan. APA has recognized his work with the 1998 Paul Davidoff Award and two awards from the Illinois Chapter. He has also put countless planners to work with his award–winning books, Government Job Finder, The Compleat Guide to Finding Jobs in Government, and The Compleat Guide to Jobs in Planning and Public Administration. |
| While on the APA and AICP governing boards, he worked for fiscal responsibility and has long sought to build the capacity of chapters to provide affordable high quality continuing education, and to learn how to influence elected officials and the media. For details on his service to APA, see his biography. He has consistently sought out the views of regular ol’ APA and AICP members far beyond his social circle — and actually listened to them. |
Daniel has actually appointed his opponent Mike Harper to a variety of APA and AICP committees. Their position statements and responses to the CPC’s questionnaire illustrate their different outlooks. Mike wants everyone to like him and tries to have it both ways on the issue of requiring mandatory continuing education credits, while personally supporting the requirement. His position statement shows no vision for the planning profession nor AICP. While on the AICP Commission, his position on just about every issue has been a major disappointment to us.
One of the most under-represented groups on the APA Board are the planners working in the planning trenches day in and day out. We’re not talking about the planning directors. We’re talking about that “ordinary ol’ planner” who on a daily basis has to balance the interests of citizens, codes, plan commissioners, elected officials, and the demands of ethical, inclusionary, sound planning practice. Timothy Brown does all that on a daily basis and we think his position statement and answers to the CPC’s Questionnaire show that he will be an insightful, thoughtful, and independent voice on the APA Board — someone who can bring the Board back to Earth when it wonders off into Wonderland.
His opponents all clearly care about APA, but buy into the CPC’s formerly hidden agenda too much to make us comfortable. While Michael Davolio and Leslie Kettren (an otherwise fine choice) offer some interesting ideas, Tim’s position statement reflects a greater commitment to focusing on substance rather than on internal politics. Much as we may like her personally (and she is a delightful, dedicated individual), Teree Bergman’s position statement falls into the style over substance category. All four would serve ably, but Timothy Brown offers the best combination of substance, freshness, and independence.
None of us have ever met Patricia Steffels, but the research we have conducted suggests that she will bring to the APA Board an open mind, a willingness to identify why APA is losing so many planning commissioner members and to devise responsible ways to reverse this trend, and will support building a climate in which we can practice sound, ethical, inclusionary planning. She is definitely more interested in substance than style — and does not wish to get bogged down in the sort of internal politics the CPC’s formerly hidden agenda seeks. Pat’s position statement suggests that she has a better grasp on the substantive issues that confront APA and planning commissioners than her opponent who clearly shares Pat’s dedication to sound planning.
It doesn’t get any easier than this. Frank Popper’s work has helped redefine planning. He invented the term “LULU” (Locally Unwanted Land Use) — a much more descriptive acronym than the lawyers’ “NIMBY.” He and his wife Deborah (now how many spouses can actually work together professionally?) revolutionized planning policy in the Great Plains. The insights of his co–authored book, Land Reform, American Style have influenced countless planners throughout the nation. And in his previous term on the APA Board almost 20 years ago, he helped create the APA Amicus Curiae committee and bring extensive reforms to APA. Frank’s opponents are fine people who care about APA, but, as their responses to the CPC’s questionnaire show, they buy into the CPC’s formerly hidden agenda and lack the leadership–by–example skills that Frank exhibits.
It is impossible to make a recommendation in this contest. Based on their responses to the CPC’s questionnaire, we think that Nora Shepard would be the more open minded if elected. Dean Brennan’s position statement offers more intriguing directions for APA, but his responses to the CPC’s questionnaire make it clear that he completely shares the CPC’s formerly hidden agenda and would turn over much of APA governance to the 48–member CPC.
Tough call here. Two excellent candidates with much to recommend both of them. We give the edge to Steve Preston largely because we have seen him in action as chair of several contentious APA and AICP committees. Steve has the rare ability to get people of fiercely differing viewpoints to work together. He has the equally–rare ability to really handle a meeting well. The APA Board needs someone on it with these abilities given the wide gulf of opinion among its leadership. On the other hand, if the candidates recommended here all lose, there won't be a need for Steve’s skills because there will be just one viewpoint among the entire board. Like Steve, John Bridges has been a superb president of the California chapter and, we suspect, would serve well if elected.
Only AICP members can vote in the AICP Regional contests below..
Much of the current high level of interest in planning among the public and elected officials is due to the long–term efforts of planning legend Don Krueckeberg. A past editor of the Journal of APA and past President of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, he is co–author of a classic planning methods text. His leadership as a planner, planning educator, and chapter officer — coupled with the good sense his position statement reflects — make him our choice over Bob Mitchell, whom we supported four years ago. Bob has had four years to govern AICP and has shown little leadership or inspiration. He has often supported decisions that reflect misplaced priorities and continues to be wishy–washy on issues, in the end nearly always supporting the imprudent option.
Alan Canter will bring much needed level–headedness to the AICP Commission along with the insights his lengthy public planning career has produced. His innovativeness as a planner is reflected by the innovative ideas he proffers in his position statement.
This contest pits two excellent people against each other. We have no hesitation picking Mark Winogrond who wrote what many of us think is the best position statement we have ever seen. Few planners have his ability to cut to the chase without offending those who disagree with him. He is one of those rare planners who has risen through the ranks to become a city manager — and given the way so many city managers treat planners, we need a lot more planners to assume the city manager position. It is a shame that the most excellent Joyce Crosthwaite had to be slated against Mark. Like Mark, she recognizes how important it is for the planning profession to address the issues of the nation’s poor and forgotten. Unlike Mark, she appears to have bought into much of the CPC’s formerly hidden agenda.
Return to the Quick Quiz Question
Correct answer: Well, we think it is “G.” If unsure, read the questions the CPC posed. Return to the table and click on “Answers to CPC Questions” in any race to read the CPC’s questionnaire (and candidates’ answers).
