PRSA ExecutiveBlog Logo
  • Home
  • About PRSA
  • Membership
  • Professional Development
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • PRSA Home

Currently viewing and reading

To Remove — or Not To Remove — the APR Requirement for Board Service

Posted by Gary McCormick in May 10th 2010  
Tweet

PRSA recently became aware that six of its members have formed an ad hoc committee and are circulating a petition in support of an amendment to PRSA’s Bylaws. The amendment would remove the requirement that PRSA’s national officers and Board members be Accredited in Public Relations (APR).

The committee is following a time-honored, democratic tradition of bringing forward important issues for the PRSA Assembly to debate and decide — on behalf of all Society members. Like it or not, this is the way that the egalitarian governance process functions at PRSA. It’s possible that still other proposed amendments will be brought before this year’s Assembly.

The changes that the ad hoc committee is proposing do not challenge nor question the value of the APR credential or the Accreditation process; in fact, the percentage of PRSA members who are APR has consistently hovered around 20 percent annually over the past ten years. And on an absolute basis, the number of PRSA members who were APR at the end of 2009 is near a 16-year high.

Rather, the changes being sought would eliminate the requirement that all national officers and Board members be Accredited. The changes retain the spirit of a recommendation advanced last year by PRSA’s Bylaws Rewrite Task Force, which would have allowed any PRSA member in good standing — who is APR; and/or a Chapter, District, Section or Committee leader; and/or has more than 20 years of public relations experience with increasing levels of responsibility — to run for the Board.

In November 2009, the PRSA Assembly voted down that recommendation. Under PRSA’s bylaws, however, the ad hoc committee has the right to raise this issue before the Assembly again (and again).

Specifically, Article XIV of PRSA’s Bylaws provides for the proposal of Bylaw amendments. Among the ways that an amendment may be proposed is via a petition signed by at least 25 members. Then, a two-thirds vote of the Assembly delegates present in person or by proxy, and voting at any annual or special meeting of the membership, is required for the adoption of amendments.

Assuming that the ad hoc committee obtains the necessary signatures and forwards the language it would like the Assembly to consider, PRSA will develop an outreach program to raise awareness of the changes being sought, similar to the one that we conducted for last year’s proposed changes to PRSA’s Bylaws. An eGroup for the purpose of furthering discussion on this proposed amendment also should be active by week’s end.

PRSA’s current Board of Directors has not taken a position supporting or opposing the proposed amendment. Individual Board Members, like all Delegates to the PRSA Assembly, will be free to vote in favor of or against the amendment, as they see fit.

This issue is sure to arouse passions on both sides of the aisle. Still, as the deliberative process plays out, I hope we’ll preserve the enthusiastic and positive atmosphere that pervaded last year’s Bylaws Rewrite process. It not only demonstrated a tremendous level of cooperation among the various PRSA communities, but a strong respect for the diversity of thought, interests and opinions within our Society.

Remember, we must continue to set an example for each other — as well as other industry professionals — through our pursuit of excellence, respect for all opinions and support of the free flow of information.

Gary McCormick, APR, Fellow PRSA, is 2010 Chair and CEO of PRSA.

under: Accreditation, bylaws, Governance, National Assembly
Tags: Accredited in Public Relations, bylaws, Governance, PR, PRSA, public relations, public relations and communications, Public Relations Society of America
Share: Digg it del.icio.us Facebook Stumble it Technorati Twitter

Related Post

  • Honoring Veterans: PRSA and the Military (November 11th, 2010)
  • Leadership Assembly Focuses on Future, Strategic Value of Public Relations (October 16th, 2010)
  • Accreditation Moves Forward (September 27th, 2010)
  • What I Learned as PRSA Chair (May 19th, 2010)
  • APR Critics: Down with Education! (July 31st, 2009)
← Older Comments
  • http://www.amwater.com Samantha Villegas, APR

    A big part of leadership means conceding defeat and moving wholeheartedly and genuinely forward with the decision rendered. The topic was discussed extensively at Assembly and thereafter. The anti-APR points were heard and the Assembly voted. For the strength and unity of the association and out of respect for the mark of distinction itself, we need all members of our profession to demonstrate their leadership with or without those three letters after their name by graciously moving forward with the wishes of the majority of our governing body.

  • http://hungerrelief.tyson.com Ed Nicholson, APR

    Hmmmm. Maybe the mountain should be taken to Mohammed: Just award an APR to anyone who moves and shakes enough to get elected to national office.

    While we’re at it, should the APR requirement be removed from criteria for membership to the College of Fellows?

  • Don Bates, APR, Fellow PRSA

    The problem, of course, is that Accreditation (I’ve been a proud APR since 1975!) has little to do with board/committee management skills per se. And using it as an exclusive criterion for the top leadership positions denies thousands of talented non-APRs the opportunity to serve at the highest levels. But my biggest concern over the years has been its impact on the size of PRSA’s membership relative to the size of the PR practice (250,000 in the U.S. alone?). Since it was instituted, the APR requirement has kept tens of thousands of these practitioners away from the Society. I know for a fact that it has kept hundreds of the top corporate PR heads — fully 80%-90% of whom, at any given moment, have had no connection to PRSA — from joining. This said, I don’t think the issue posed by the petitioners should be resolved by an all or nothing approach. The PRSA board should form a task force to look at options that will allow the Society to open up the ranks of needed leadership without undermining the concrete professional value of the APR process and APR status.

  • Jen Bemisderfer, APR

    The current requirement does not deny anyone the oportunity to serve. Rather, these would-be leaders are being given the opportunity to model the dedication and commitment to professional development that PRSA needs not only in our leaders, but throughout the membership ranks. To senior executives who say they don’t have time: this isn’t a medical degree! We’re talking about demonstrating a relatively basic level of understanding of PR strategy and tactics. If you have that much to offer the society, you will very easily obtain this designation.

  • http://toughsledding.wordpress.com/ Bill Sledzik

    It appears that the Ad Hoc Committee is taking its case to the membership because it sees a National Assembly hellbent on protecting the status quo. Samantha suggests the committee should accept defeat gracefully. That might be easier to do if the membership, and not the Assembly alone, were empowered to vote the issue up or down.

    I may be wrong about this, but it sure would be useful to know — in the interest of transparency — how many of those who voted in last November’s assembly were wearing the APR pin.

    Gary, could you or someone in New York provide that information in a follow-up comment? It would certainly enrich the discussion.

  • Sarah Brown, APR

    Why would the organization who created and promotes accreditation want to be governed by people who don’t have their APR? If our organization and profession values APR shouldn’t our leaders too?

    If you are committed to the public relations profession and want to serve our organization, take the test. Model your commitment to professional development. If our leaders aren’t willing to get accreditated, why would the rest of our membership?

  • http://www.prdude.wordpress.com Edward M. Bury, APR

    Just a point of clarification in this spirited discussion: The Accreditation program was founded by PRSA in 1964 and administered by PRSA until 1988, when the Universal Accreditation Board was formed. The UAB is comprised of representatives from PRSA and eight other participating organizations. The job of the UAB is to grant, administer and promote Accreditation. The UAB does not comment on the governance policies of any of the participating organizations.

    Edward M. Bury, APR
    Member, Universal Accreditation Board

  • Jessica Kraft

    It strikes me as ridiculous that a small minority of APRs holds back the 80% majority of qualified, dedicated PR professionals who want to commit their time to furthering the profession and the organization. Until APR is changed so that it’s a designation kept throughout my life – not just as long as I pay my PRSA dues – then it’s not one I will support. I would rather support those who earn their Masters and PhDs. Please tell me how to immediately sign the petition. And let’s allow the membership as a whole to vote.

  • Gary McCormick

    Hi Bill,

    I appreciate your dropping by our blog to offer your perspective, and writing about this issue on your own blog (http://bit.ly/9ZLo3j).

    To answer your question, the number of delegates, including proxies, registered prior to the 2009 PRSA Assembly was 313; of those, 227 (72.5 percent) held the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential. Looking ahead to future Assemblies, we have begun to explore ways to provide a more detailed (transparent) tabulation of the voting results with the company that supplies our electronic voting keypads.

    Hope this helps.

  • http://toughsledding.wordpress.com/ Bill Sledzik

    Thanks, Gary. As I said over at my place, I know APRs who favor the rule change proposal, and I see many here who oppose it. Both make solid cases.

    But I can see why Art Stevens, et. al., have gone the petition route, trying to create a groundswell within the chapters. Not saying a body that’s 72.5% APR would be biased have a bias, but you know what they say about perceptions.

    Thanks for the response, and for your transparency on this issue from the outset.

  • http://www.professionalpodcasts.com Steve “@PodcastSteve” Lubetkin

    I add my voice once more to those in favor of retaining the APR requirement. This is not a “sole criterion,” as many of the opponents have suggested, but a minimum requirement. Of course we expect our leaders to have other collaborative, governance, and administrative skills. But it’s perfectly reasonable to also ask them to demonstrate a commitment to professional standards if we are to have any such standards.

    It’s such a specious argument to say that because a small number of people have the credential, no one should have to have it. Demonstrate your real desire to lead by showing people by your own example that this is an important personal and professional accomplishment.

    And with due respect to my good friend Ed Nicholson, APR, I strongly oppose any attempt to remove APR as a requirement for the College of Fellows. Even if the naysayers succeed in damaging the APR as one of many criteria for leadership, they should not affect the College, which at least is allowed to have some standards!

    Steve Lubetkin, APR, Fellow, PRSA
    Former member, PRSA National Board of Directors, 2003-2005
    Past member, Universal Accreditation Board 1997-2003

← Older Comments
« “Do’s” for Helping a Public Relations Job Search: Pay it Back/Pay it Forward
A Postcard from the Hispanic Public Relations and Social Media Conference »

Subscribe to the PRSA blog.

  • Feed Icon via RSS Feed or eMail


    Your email is safe. Privacy Policy.

Welcome



PRSAY is a forum for PRSA members and other public relations professionals to engage in a dialogue with PRSA leaders, exchange viewpoints, and share perspectives on issues of concern to the Society and the public relations industry as a whole. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of PRSA.

Search

Join PRSA

  • With your PRSA membership, you will:

    • Stay on top of emerging public relations trends and industry news.
    • Be a part of a vibrant community of more than 22,000 public relations professionals.
    • Accelerate your career -- at any level.

PRSA on Twitter

#prsa on Twitter

Categories

Archives

Switch site

    • Switch to our mobile site

Switch to our mobile site

Recent Entries

  • Friday Five: Engagement Is a Winning Tool When Used Properly
  • Cost Controls, Market Performance Help PRSA Best 2012 Financial Goals
  • Friday Five: Ad Placements Act as Good Indicator of Strength in Audience Connection
  • The Future Starts Today
  • Friday Five: Reshaping PR for the 21st Century

Recent Comments

  • Allie Goatley in Public Relations: A Lifelong Learni…
  • Identify indust… in #PRin2012: 12 Trends That Will Chan…
  • 5 PR tips from … in Of PR and Protest: 'The Times They …
  • Christina Gidde… in Public Relations: A Lifelong Learni…
  • Corinne Fisher in Friday Five: Reputation Matters…W…

Most Comments

  • Public Relations Won’t Fix Penn State’s Crisis  (49)
  • #PRin2012: 12 Trends That Will Change Public Relations  (41)
  • Paid or Unpaid, Time to Evaluate PR's Use of Interns (34)
  • To Remove — or Not To Remove — the APR Requirement for Board Service (31)
  • ‘Prize-Rigging’ Can Undermine Your Brand’s Online Promotion (27)
©2008-2013 PRSAY – What Do You Have to Say?
Powered by WordPress 3.4.1
Box-Tube Box Modulize WordPress Theme By Dezzain Studio
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Membership
  • Professional Development
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • PRSA Home
  • Terms of Use