Open-Ended Question:
What would you change
or improve about SMA?
Responses to this question mostly
fell into these four buckets:
1.
More members
2.
More chances to connect
3.
More training and learning opportunities
4.
More international focus
Some standout comments
under "What would you change or
improve about SMA?" follow.
"SMA is only a microcosm of urban forestry. I would
like to be able to have a broader networking/
educational experience when I attend the
SMA meetings. I have many colleagues who
do not belong to SMA because they feel it is
too close-knit, narrow, or just not for them."
"More opportunities to interact with other members
throughout the year, even if it's just regional
members. I have heard from others that they are
not members because they don't see much benefit
for the cost of membership. With tight municipal
budgets, it's hard to justify the cost if they are
unable to travel to the annual conference."
"I'd like to see SMA help raise the profile of our
profession. This is a big ask and a long-term
endeavor. I'd like arboriculture and urban forestry
to be recognized as serious professions in this
country. Can SMA make ground here for all of us?"
"Much of the work feels centered on the USA and
needs to be broadened to other countries."
"More online information, a database of municipal
tree ordinances, bylaws, plans, etc. to help
me benchmark with other communities."
"Probably [change] the name to
something more inclusive."
"I think there's a lot of room for our organization to
claim when it comes to having the primary expertise
in municipal forestry similar to the role ISA plays
for arboriculture. We should be the resource for
anyone involved in planning large-scale planting
or maintenance programs, tree inventories, or
developing policies and plans at the municipal scale."
14 CityTREES
