PRSA Fails to Strike APR Requirement for Board Service

The PRSA Delegate Assembly today voted resoundingly against removing the requirement that potential national board members hold an Accreditation in Public Relations (APR) in order to stand for election. The vote, which required a two-thirds majority, failed to even garner a majority, falling 104-172.

The voted ended a passionate and looong debate this year for and against this change. To summarize, those for the amendment felt that removing the requirement would open board leadership to a much larger pool of candidates, while those against argued that holding an APR demonstrates the necessary commitment to the profession and the society.

I voted for the change, twice actually, as I held a proxy for our chapter's other vote. I did so at the direction of the PRSA Silicon Valley board, which voted to support the amendment.

What made this debate interesting to me is that it encapsulated many wider issues in the transformation and evolution of the PR industry. From my point of view, those arguing against the amendment (at least those who spoke or wrote publicly) were largely motivated by a desire to slow change, to affirm their support for "the way things are" and to support the APR accreditation as a symbol of PR expertise.

On the other side, those supporting the amendment seemed to be crying out for the organization to modernize, to open its leadership to a wider pool of candidates, and to recognize that "public relations" as a profession and marketing function is rapidly evolving.

In the end, I think the amendment lost because it addressed a narrow issue, the APR requirement, rather than rewriting the entire "minimum requirements" bylaw altogether. In addition to the APR requirement, the minimum requirements still call for potential Board members to have served as a chapter or section board member or, at a minimum, to have been in the profession for 20 years.

As a membership organization, the only *minimum* requirement for board service should be that the person be a PRSA member for a minimum of 2-3 years. Such a low threshold would allow anyone with a demonstrated commitment to the organization to run for office, only barring insurgents seeking for some reason to take over the organization.

Why the bare minimum? Because the nomination and election process is the proper place to vet qualifications for leadership, not the bylaws. The pool should be as wide as possible, thus hopefully turning the election itself into an opportunity to debate and discuss the future of the organization and the profession.

If there's anyone out there worrying about the business efficacy of this organization, I recommend that you take this vote as a warning sign of a hidebound association that may be too slow to change to meet the needs of tomorrow's PR and marketing professionals.

[2010 PRSA International Conference]

canadian pharmacy Clozaril