by Rich Murphy, PhD, APR
Puget Sound Chapter Vice-President for Education and Accreditation
A serious question of institutional policy is being put before PRSA. I am writing to invite you to share your opinions about it here.
The issue is this. As one of its long-established policies governing association elections, PRSA requires candidates for national office and national board service to have earned APR accreditation. Some members believe that this requirement should be abolished.
In a public statement issued on May 10, 2010, the Committee for a Democratic PRSA claims that such a limitation does not serve democracy in PRSA and deprives “many worthy members . . . of the opportunity to support the organization.” The committee has also posted on line a petition seeking member signatures to end the accreditation requirement.
This challenge to settled eligibility criteria raises a question of real substance for the organization: that is, whether it believes in its own standard of professional competence and quality.
APR is the official certification of professional excellence in public relations. Since 1964, when it was established, it has remained the single post-graduate credential of specialized expertise available in the profession. PRSA invests considerable resources in encouraging its members to earn accreditation, and it takes every opportunity to communicate to the public the value of this mark of professional distinction. One way it does so is by requiring its national office holders to be accredited.
My view is that it is correct to do so.
I am writing here as an individual member of PRSA, and my view does not necessarily represent the position of the board of the Puget Sound Chapter. But the logic of institutional credibility and integrity seems to me to be inescapable.
If an organization professes to value its single credential of expertise—and expects its members and the public to value it as well—it ought to require its elected leaders to have earned that credential.
