Since ASPO and AIP consolidated to create APA/AICP, the merged organization has faced a creative tension between the APA/AICP establishment, comprised primarily of current and former chapter presidents — who tend to agree with each other and speak with one voice — and us independent types who tend to speak with many voices, sometimes agreeing and sometimes not, but always reflecting the wide variety of views among APA/AICP members.

The editors of APAWatchdog and the candidates we recommend value the contributions of all members of APA/AICP and recognize that our chapters and divisions are integral elements in APA/AICP’s success to date. In any democratic organization there should be room for more than one viewpoint on the issues, practices, and actions taken by the organization’s governing bodies. The people who enact these practices and actions should be held accountable for their actions.

The APA/AICP establishment, on the other hand, seems to feel that it owns a monopoly on knowing what is best for APA/AICP. and that anyone who disagrees with them is simply “divisive” or “negative,” to use their terms. If you disagree with them, you are negative and must hate APA — so we’ve been told. If you hold someone accountable for their voting record, many members of the APA/AICP establishment see any criticism as a personal attack.

The establishment folk seem to feel that only former chapter presidents and division chairs should ascend to the APA Board and AICP Commission. That’s one reason why they don’t accept the results when you elect independent people to the Board or Commission. Behind their backs, some establishment leaders call them “illegitimate.”* You would be surprised how many times members of APA/AICP’s establishment have told us to stick to changing planning practice and leave the governance of APA/AICP to them.

The APA/AICP establishment reminds us of the worst planning commissions that first decide whether or not to approve a rezoning, and then tell staff to write findings of fact. In contrast, we believe that APA/AICP governance should apply sound planning principles like making findings of fact before voting; like applying cause and effect analysis and capital planning and budgeting techniques to APA/AICP.

The establishment folk tend to rely a lot on slogans and rah–rah leadership — just read the position statements of the candidates they support. Look at the postcards you receive from their candidates. This is what we mean when we say they offer style over substance. The candidates we recommend want you to really think about the issues in depth and reason out the solutions — much as we try to do on this lengthy and word–intense website. They favor substance over style. Different strokes…

But serving as a chapter president or division chair is not the only way to provide leadership — and they certainly do not have a monopoly on what is best for the profession or the organization.

The independents (of which we are proud to be a part) believe that any APA member should be eligible to serve on the APA Board and any AICP member on the AICP Commission. We believe that the organization and profession are best served when the people on their governing boards represent the broad diversity of opinions among professional planners and planning commissioners. We have supported many people for the APA Board and AICP Commission. Some have served as chapter or division heads. Some have not.

Most of the people we have supported provide leadership through the work they have performed, whether it be groundbreaking work that has transformed planning practice or theory, or serving as a great role model by performing well and courageously on the job. It is noteworthy that none of the candidates recommended here know all the others and none of us editors knows all the candidates we recommend. While we approached a lot of people to run (including a good number of women and so–call “minorities” — all declined to run this year), we did not recruit all of  those we recommend. The independents can never become an exclusionary clique like the APA establishment because APA independents are inclusionary by nature, often encouraging complete strangers to run for APA/AICP office. Different strokes…

As recounted elsewhere on this website, the APA/AICP establishment has changed the by–laws and election rules many times to make it harder for independents to get on the ballot or get elected.** Over the years, the establishment folk have proposed by–law amendments to make APA/AICP emulate restrictive professional organizations by nominating only one candidate for office or eliminating petition candidacies. Despite pretty overwhelming opposition from APA members who submitted comments on the proposed by–laws, last year the APA Board amended the by–laws to cut the time allowed to gather petition signatures nearly in half (some APA petitioners barely met the shorter deadline and we know of one APA race in which no one would run by petition due to the shorter petitioning time period).

Now a proposal is before the APA Board to prohibit most members of the organization from voting for the AICP President who also sits on the APA Board — not a sound idea for two reasons: (1) the AICP President is supposed represent the concerns of all APA members before the AICP Commission because AICP’s actions often affect all planners (hence all APA members vote for AICP President–Elect), and (2) the AICP President also serves on the APA Board. In 1985 APA members voted in reforms by referendum establishing the principle that everybody who sits on the APA Board shall be elected by all APA members in their geographical jurisdictions.

Many people in the APA/AICP establishment harbor quite a bit of ill will toward the independent people who have served on the APA Board and AICP Commission because we have upset their apple cart and been able to block some very ill–advised actions the establishment people have proposed. But way back in the 1980s, board members were able to disagree on APA issues and still be friends outside the board room. All that has changed as today’s establishment types have made it all very personal. And they have been pretty successful at keeping independent people from running. Today, the APA Board and AICP Commission are composed almost entirely of members of the APA/AICP establishment.

Their changes to election rules have been so successful at discouraging anybody independent from running that this is the first election in six years in which more than just one or two independent people have run for APA or AICP office.

The members of the APA/AICP establishment particularly refuse to accept any accountability for their actions. If you criticize somebody’s record, they view it as a personal attack. We do, however, question the prudence of the actions some candidates have taken or proposed while serving on the Board, Commission, or Chapter Presidents Council. We are seriously concerned over the impact of candidates spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to get elected. We do our best to focus on issues. We have great personal respect for all candidates even when we disagree with them on the issues. We hope that the APA/AICP establishment folk will choose to focus on issues and issue analysis in this election.

The bottom line is that there really are different strokes for different folks. No doubt everyone involved in APA/AICP governance really loves the planning profession and APA/AICP. They just believe in different ways to advance the profession and organization — and in who shall have the opportunity to lead our organization. We hope that common ground can be found — but that can never happen as long as independent planners are so thoroughly excluded from APA/AICP leadership.

Bizarre at it may seem, we are not making this up. We have been told several times that some members of the APA Board, AICP Commission, and Chapter Presidents Council (CPC) call Norm Krumholz (1999-2001), the late and very missed Melvin Levin (1986-1988), Sam Casella (2001-2003), and Daniel Lauber (1992-94) illegitimate Presidents of AICP because they did not come up through the chapter leadership route and did not kowtow to the CPC. Return to where you were.

Since its inception, APA/AICP has governed itself quite differently than most professional societies. In a great many associations, only a relatively small establishment–type segment of their membership can serve on their governing boards. For example, the American Association on Mental Retardation limits eligibility to serve on its Board of Directors to its “Fellows,” a very small segment of its full membership. It maintains an incredibly wasteful regional structure that makes no sense.

Often only one candidate is nominated for each office and petition candidacies are not allowed. In some groups, members do not directly elect their governing boards — much like the way state legislatures elected U.S. Senators before the 20th century.

So far, APA/AICP has been more open — maybe because planners favor openness in government. But there has always been that tension between the establishment group seeking to control APA/AICP and the independent planners seeking to fully participate in APA/AICP governance. Return to where you were.

Return to top of page