I write to you today on behalf of our Board of Ethics and Professional Standards (BEPS) Chair B.J. Whitman, APR, Fellow PRSA.
BJ submitted the resolution below to Garland Stansell, APR, Chair, PRSA, yesterday afternoon (11/9).
After discussing this bylaw proposal with our BEPS board, we reached unanimous consent to draft a resolution recommending "nay" votes for the proposed bylaw amendment 20-05.
Please see the below resolution which outlines our position.
The proposed amendment, and others, are up for delegate votes at the virtual Leadership Assembly on December 5.
We hope you will give this BEPS resolution serious consideration and share it with your colleagues in PRSA leadership positions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BEPS Resolution
11/10/20
Board of Ethics and Professional Standards
Resolution Regarding Removal of APR Requirement for PRSA Leadership
The PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards (BEPS) has considered the proposed bylaw amendment titled "Proposal 20-05 APR Requirement for Officers and Directors". The Amendment recommends eliminating the Accreditation in Public Relations (APR) requirement for national board service.
This Resolution details the BEPS position on the matter, which is against any bylaw change that would remove the APR requirement for those who serve on the national board. BEPS believes anyone who serves at the PRSA Board level must lead by example and meet the professionalism requirement, enhancing their knowledge of the PRSA Code of Ethics, which is reflected by earning the APR.
This Resolution recognizes the longstanding commitment PRSA has made for generations in embracing accreditation by making it a part of PRSA's "DNA." The APR value is present today, thanks to that level of long-term commitment. Only now, after decades of investment in accreditation, is the APR more widely accepted both inside and outside PRSA. In fact, for many, it is viewed as a leadership standard in our practice.
Critical to this long-term success has been PRSA's fundamental decision to require its national board leaders to meet accreditation standards.
BEPS maintains that if PRSA seeks to broaden its leadership ranks, lowering the APR requirement for national board service is not the solution. Instead, working to recruit leaders from a strong pool of already accredited members and increasing the number of accredited professionals would be practical and consistent with PRSA's enduring commitment to the accreditation process.
The APR designation differentiates PRSA as an association and its professional members. It committed, as an organization to the Code of Ethics and the highest standard of ethical behavior with our clients, fellow members, and society. The process of achieving this designation provides our members the fundamentals of decent conduct, sound business practices, and deeper understanding of our six Code of Ethics Values: Advocacy, Fairness, Loyalty, Honesty, Independence, and Expertise, and our six Code of Ethics Core Principles: Enhancing the Profession, Competition, Conflicts of Interest, Free Flow of Information, Disclosure of Information, and Safeguarding Confidences. APR defines who we are as an organization and as individuals.
In fact, in broadening one's knowledge through the APR process, BEPS believes Accreditation enhances our leadership pathway. Accreditation gives a basis for providing moral decision making, improving business relationships, prohibiting inappropriate behavior, and holding all of us accountable to be better human beings.
We recognize that 13% of the APR examination is on applying ethics and law. We recommend maintaining the fairness and equity of the APR credential requirement in that PRSA members may have the assurance that all seeking the highest national offices within the Society have passed the ethics as well as all six of the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSA) areas of the exam. Accreditation provides candidate criteria for an even playing field, providing a common ground from which, regardless of background, all candidates have been tested and passed in understanding of the KSAs. Regardless of the diversity of professional backgrounds that PRSA embraces, from agency, corporate, non-profit, government and academia, candidates who are Accredited have ready proof of their knowledge, skills and abilities from which to commonly operate.
If PRSA removes this requirement, the accreditation program will likely suffer a severe setback that will weaken it in the same fashion that the established need has fostered its growth.
It is reasonable to expect board candidates to meet this reliable requirement that demonstrates their commitment to the profession and serves as a model for those they will lead. As public relations counselors, we advise our chief executives to model leadership. If our PRSA chief executives are not modeling and endorsing Accreditation in Public Relations, what message does this send about the credential?
For these reasons, BEPS does not support the proposed bylaw amendment. We vote against removing the accreditation requirement for leaders. We also strongly believe doing so would unnecessarily undermine PRSA's cornerstone accolades and hinder one of the most distinctive programs our society offers.
Via unanimous consent, the Board of Ethics and Professional Standards encourages delegates to vote nay on Amendment Proposal 20-05.
PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards members:
BJ Whitman, APR, Fellow PRSA (BEPS Chair)
Heather Morgan, APR (Secretary)
Blake Lewis, APR, Fellow PRSA
Karen Swim, APR
Anita Ford Saunders, APR
Pete Scott, APR
Tim O'Brien, APR
Paula Pedene, APR, Fellow PRSA
Cayce Meyers, APR
Stacy Smith, APR, Fellow PRSA
Michele Ewing, APR, Fellow PRSA
Mark Dvorak, APR, Fellow PRSA