Commission reviews draft report on Rhode Island planning workforce; asks staff to circulate revised draft

Members of a commission reviewing a draft report on Rhode Island’s planning workforce discussed technical edits, data attribution and recommendations for academic pathways and workforce development, and asked staff to collect written comments from members who could not attend before circulating a second draft.

The conversation focused on tightening language (including replacing “urban planning” with “community planning”), confirming data sources, elevating a survey finding that 25% of respondents reported an inability to find qualified applicants, and clarifying where higher-education programs and state resources should be cited in the draft report.

Commission members said the draft should distinguish between different planning roles and the authorities those roles carry. Several members suggested replacing the term “urban planning” with “community planning” to avoid implying bias against rural or suburban practitioners, and recommended recording more precise attributions for statistics. One member said a statistic in the draft should be attributed to the Rhode Island Bureau of Labor and Training rather than to APA Rhode Island.

Derek, a staff member who prepared the draft, said he had circulated a track-changes copy and would incorporate comments. “I will make the appropriate changes and get this out to you just as soon as I am able to,” Derek said near the meeting’s close. The commission directed Derek to contact members who were absent and ask them to submit written comments; he was asked to review those and issue a second draft to the commission for review prior to finalizing the report.

Members pressed for clearer presentation of the report’s key findings. Multiple participants said the finding that “25%” of surveyed municipalities stated an inability to find qualified applicants is a central result that should be highlighted rather than buried in a paragraph. One member proposed moving that finding into a separate, emphasized bullet.

Education and training pathways were discussed at length. Members recommended that the draft emphasize collaboration among Rhode Island College (RIC), the University of Rhode Island (URI), the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) and technical schools such as New England Tech to develop transferable course sequences, certificates and potential degree pathways. The commission debated wording about whether URI’s expanded offerings were “imminent” and agreed to change phrasing to indicate institutions are “considering” or “discussing” program development unless the institutions have confirmed otherwise.

Participants also suggested specific clarifications and technical edits: correcting dates (no comma between month and year), replacing “retainment” with “retention,” ensuring capitalization of job titles is appropriate, confirming whether certain credential requirements are mandatory or often preferred, and consistently referring to the American Planning Association as the Rhode Island Chapter rather than a division. Meredith, of the Division of Statewide Planning, urged clearer distinction between the chapter and the state planning division and said additional state resources for planning would be welcome: “I will never, refuse having more resources available at the state when it comes to planning,” Meredith said.

Commission members discussed possible incentives for higher-education institutions, including the idea of seed funding from the General Assembly to help colleges create or restructure programs in community planning; participants noted that “seed money” is informal phrasing and asked staff to use more formal language if the commission recommends legislative funding. The draft already includes a recommendation that the General Assembly consider funding to incentivize institutions to start or restructure programs supporting municipal/community planning career pathways.

No formal vote was taken on the draft report. The only formal action recorded in the transcript was a motion and second to adjourn; the chair called the meeting adjourned on a voice vote.

The commission asked staff to make the technical and substantive changes discussed, to verify attributions (including the Bureau of Labor and Training statistic and statements attributed to named presenters), and to circulate a second draft to all members after collecting written comments from those who could not attend. The meeting ended after the adjournment motion passed by voice vote.