LETTERS LETT R E S
I HAVE, FOR SOME TIME, been trying to figure out the impetus behind the Planning for the Future campaign. Why the sudden obsession with certification, compe- tency and ethics? In my experience, “non-certified” planners (i.e., non-members of cip) are every bit as competent as certi- fied ones. Secondly, while the proposed Code of Ethics makes reference to sustain- ability and the public interest—something the proposed enabling competencies do not, at least explicitly—what we so often forget is that most planners are “employ- ees”. That is, they are subject to the will of city managers, council members, and cabi- net ministers. As a result, they very often must put their imprimatur on decisions that are not in the public interest, and that are not sustainable. Technically, this vio- lates the Code of Ethics. Will cip or any of the affiliates bring non-compliance or breach of conduct proceedings against such members? Not likely. A piece of the puzzle fell into place
10
when I read “Are We Graduating Too Many Planners?” by Grant Moore in the latest issue of Plan Canada. Ostensibly express- ing his personal opinion, Grant ends the article by saying “Share your thoughts with us.” Moore’s basic argument is that there are too many planning graduates chasing too few jobs. He asks: “Should enrolment and programs contract to bring the supply of planners more in line with demand? Anecdotal evidence certainly suggests this might be warranted.” One way he argues of doing this is to
move towards “establishing a narrower, proprietary [emphasis added] body of knowledge while simultaneously restrict- ing membership to only graduates of accredited planning programs.” Ultimately, planning would move towards the model of the legal or medical profession where the “right to practice” would be enshrined in law. So, what we have here possibly is not some high-minded move to secure the pub- lic interest, but a potentially naked grab at greater exclusivity to ensure a better mar- ket for our services. (It’s interesting to note that the document on professional compe- tencies refers to how these must address the needs of our “consumers” rather than to
Why the sudden obsession with certification, competency and ethics? In my experience, “non- certified” planners (i.e., non- members of CIP) are every bit as competent as certified ones.
our role as change agents or guardians of the public interest.) don alexander, phd, mcip
University-college professor Department of Geography Vancouver Island University
editor’s note: The National Membership Standards Committee (nmsc) co-chairs were invited to respond to the questions raised in Dr. Alexander’s letter.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER. The questions you raise speak to the very core of the rationale for the Planning for the Future project. cip initiated this project over five years ago in recognition of the need to update and upgrade standards for professional certification. Prior to this proj- ect, cip’s membership standards had not been rigorously reviewed for over 25 years. It was acknowledged by all affiliates that there was a need to review the processes for certifying professional planners to ensure that the profession was responding to current and future societal planning issues while continuing to uphold high ethical standards. It was also launched to respond to challenges to remove barri- ers to inter-provincial and international labour mobility—the freedom of workers to practice their occupations wherever opportunities exist. The intent of the proj- ect is to implement improvements that will enhance professionalism, through standards that are rigorous, consistent and fairly applied across the country in
all affiliates. The project has engaged hundreds of volunteer hours of members from across the country who are unified in these efforts. Professionalism and ethics are funda-
mental to professional practice and have been a basic tenet of the certification of planners since the inception of the Institute. The question you raise regarding the role of ethics in a political world is important. Professional certified planners must abide by professional codes of con- duct and ethics in their practice of planning. They make recommendations based on best practices and with regard to the public interest, which may or may not be implemented by decision makers. What is critical is that planners uphold the high- est standards in making these recommendations. Decision makers will then weigh these recommendations along with other factors when making decisions. While planners do not control the decision- making process, it is essential that their recommendations are based on a solid foundation of core functional and enabling competencies obtained through a combina- tion of education and experience that strives for excellence in planning practice, and we are accountable for those recom- mendations and our advice as professional certified planners. This is why upgrading certification standards is so important for the future of the profession. karen russell, mcip
dana anderson, mcip, rpp nmsc co-chairs
p l an c ana da | summe r · étÉ 201 1
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56