APR At PR Society Needs Re-examing

  

The focus is on APR at the moment because six years of the new multiple choice, computer-administered exam have been revealed. 

The new test, which debuted on July 1, 2003, after of four years of study and a cost of $250,000 (virtually all PRS money), has resulted in only a thin stream of new PRS APRs (713 in total or 119 yearly). Previously, more than 300 new PRS APRs were created yearly. In 1996, when there were 17,002 members vs. 22,000 now, 352 became APR.

Although administered by the Universal Accreditation Board which has eight other member organizations, about 80% of test-takers are PRS members.

APR started out as an educational program but turned into a political party through which non-New York based PRS members exercise control of h.q. Only APRs have been allowed on the PRS board for 35 years.

Few New Yorkers ever take the test. Only one New Yorker is on the 17-member board, Lynn Appelbaum of CCNY. She agreed to serve after no one else showed up from New York after two nomcom deadlines had passed in 2008.

Francis Onofrio of Bethany, Conn., was the previous “New York” representative on the board.

‘Boot Camp’ Denounced

PRS attempted to spur interest in APR by scheduling a $585 four-day “APR boot camp” Aug. 26-29. One mistake it made was sending Steve Cody of Peppercom an invitation to sign up for the camp on the last day of registration, July 24.

This was the last straw for Cody, who heads a PR firm that did $13.5 million in fees in 2008.

He said on his blog that he had been reluctant to comment on APR because he didn’t want to offend some industry leaders.

But the “boot camp” drove him to write that “An APR is worthless. It’s never meant anything to any client organization I’ve ever encountered … and is based on a false assumption that a PR pro should master rules and regulations in the same way a doctor of lawyer must.”

It can’t capture “the quicksilver changes being made by consumers who now decide with whom they wish to speak, as well as when and where,” he added.

The announcement of the boot camp said recruits would get instruction in 60 KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities). We’d like a list of those 60 and we’re sure that Steve would like to see this also.

Arthur Yann, VP-PR of PRS, answered Cody’s criticism with a long e-mail tracing the history of APR, naming top execs who are APR, and saying APR “reflects a strong commitment to professional excellence and provides a distinction that can open doors to career and salary advancement.” Yann is not APR.

Canadian Test Requires Writing

While discussing the APR test, we heard from several PR pros who said the APR test of the Canadian PR Society is far superior.

Unlike the multiple-choice U.S. test, CPRS requires 3.5 hours of on-the-spot writing (including creation of a PR program). There is a 45-minute oral exam on the day of the test as well as questions about PR that are answered in writing.

There are no multiple-choice questions.

Before being allowed to take it, candidates must show five years in full-time PR positions and must submit five letters of recommendation including three from APRs and two from non-APRs. Cost is $400.

Non-APRs can be board members but officers must be APR.

CPRS has about 1,800 members and 485 are APR or 30% of those eligible.

CPRS puts its full audit (for year ended March 31, 2009) in the public area of its website (link to PDF). That Society defers dues income, booking the dues as they are earned over the course of a year.

Deferred revenues, “consisting primarily of deferred membership revenues and registrations received for the subsequent years’ national conference,” were $425,620 as of March 31. Membership fees were $387,288.

CPRS had $786,959 in cash/investments on March 31. Expenses were $846,962.

Free Speech Lives at FIU

The website of Florida International University, the employer of PRS chair-elect candidate Rosanna Fiske, is a good example freedom of speech in action. “Freedom of thought and expression” is the first item on the school’s “Values Statement.”

So when the FIU trustees on June 12 renamed the main campus after Modesto Maidique, who headed FIU for 23 years, it set off a howl of protests (and some defenses) on the student website.Students, who voted against the change by a nine-to-one margin on the school newspaper’s website, complained that neither they, the faculty nor the alumni had been consulted.

Many of the 69 postings as of July 24 rapped the trustees for not consulting the above audiences but others had sharp criticisms of FIU, one charging “cronyism, nepotism and corruption” at the school and another saying 20 programs were cut last year and 11 this year and it’s no time to be naming a campus after Maidique.

Several said such honors are only given to the deceased.

The sharpest criticism came from The Beacon, student newspaper.

Online director Rick Martinez said on July 1 that Maidique “hasn’t earned the respect” of the student body. The editorial board said a $100,000 bonus to Maidique plus paying him his original salary for five years after leaving the presidency in August is “incredibly unwise.”

Martinez charges that students are treated like “trash” and there is “bureaucracy,” “politics,” and “closed doors all around the campus.”

Sandra Gonzalez-Levy, chief spokesperson for FIU, was unavailable for comment, said the editorial.

Sounds like the PR Society

In its failure to run major decisions by audiences such as the students, faculty and alumni, FIU sounds just like PRS. Members didn’t hear about the move of PRS h.q. downtown for 15 years or the cancellation of the printed members’ directory until these had been accomplished. They are kept in the dark about numerous other things including the identity of all the Assembly delegates nationwide. Even delegates don’t get such a list. Months go by before minutes of board meetings are posted on the website.

FIU has one thing that PRS lacks—freedom of speech. The 69 postings on the FIU website are remarkable for their candor. Almost all of them are anonymous, a requirement if a debate is to take place when remarks could cost a participant his or her job.

PRS created PRSAY in January but it’s mostly positive-sounding announcements by leaders and similar comments by members. Those posting comments must identify themselves. There has been almost no debate about the proposed bylaw changes.

FIU has a big PR problem and we think this puts Fiske on the spot. She should be there giving advice to the trustees, telling them to recognize the existence of students, faculty and alumni and stop running over them roughshod.

How can a university teach “PR” if it doesn’t practice it itself?!

PRS Bylaws Have “Mickey” in Them

The proposed new bylaws for the PR Society contain this snake-in-the-grass: non-APRs can seek national office if they have more than 20 years of “experience with increasing levels of responsibility” or headed a chapter, district, section or national committee. Click for wording.

What’s left out is the qualification that had stood for decades: “served in at least one Assembly as a voting participant.”

Keeping this in would open the floodgates to non-APRs seeking office since scores of the delegates are non-APR (non-APRs being allowed since 2005).

This is something the APRs will not tolerate. The bone they throw is that a non-APR candidate must show 20 years in ever higher PR posts. For one thing, this would eliminate just about everyone on the current board. For another, a PR executive that successful would probably have no time for PRS. The proposed bylaws do nothing to “broaden” participation.

 

 

 

By: Jack O\’Dwyer

About the Author:

Coupon Organizer