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.

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.

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.

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

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