The Federal Trade Commission is looking at whether PRSA
is unfairly discriminating against the more than 15,000 members
who are not-accredited by allowing only those 4,100 who are
APR to run for national office or vote in the Assembly.
This rule has been in effect since 1975.
The Assembly this year will be asked to "decouple"
itself from the APR rule, which will continue to apply to
the 17 members of the national board.
Alan J. Friedman, attorney at the FTC, wrote to the O'Dwyer
Co. July 24 that federal antitrust statutory prohibitions
are "intended to ensure that the marketplace provides
consumers with a choice of products and services at competitive
prices and quality levels, free of artificial restraints on
competition."
He said the issue of PRSA's treatment of its non-APR members
has been forwarded to the FTC's Bureau of Competition where
it will receive "careful consideration."
The letter continued:
"In determining whether to take enforcement or other
action in any particular situation, the Commission may consider
a number of factors, including the type of violation alleged;
the nature and amount of consumer injury at issue and the
number of consumers affected; and the likelihood of preventing
future unlawful conduct and securing redress or other relief."
Signed
Decree in 1977
PRSA signed an FTC consent decree in 1977 after the Commission
charged that "for many years up to and including the
present, PRSA and its members have engaged in a combination,
conspiracy and common course of action to restrain the aforesaid
interstate commerce."
The FTC objected to articles in the PRSA code that barred
contingency fees for PR services and that said members were
not to "encroach" on the employment of other members.
A counselor member who sought another member's account could
be charged with an ethical violation.
PRSA has said that it has satisfied all the conditions of
the 1977 decree and that the PRSA bylaw limiting office-holding
to APRs is not anti-competitive and has nothing to do with
the 1977 decree.
FTC representatives had visited PRSA for a day and a half
in the fall of 1976 and had stated their objections to the
two code articles.
A new code was presented to the Assembly that year but the
Assembly rejected any changes, saying it didn't have enough
information. Counselors Academy members voiced strong objections
to any changes.
The FTC communicated with PRSA in early 1977 and the board
suspended the entire code until April 29, when the spring
Assembly made the appropriate changes. Kenneth Smith, 1977
president, told the Assembly: "The FTC has placed a gun
at our heads."
The FTC on Aug. 18 of that year issued a nationwide press
release describing the decree that PRSA signed promising not
to interfere with price competition or competition between
PR practitioners. PRSA had to publish the full decree in one
of its publications.
Section 7(e) of the complaint said "clients requiring
the services offered by members of PRSA have been deprived
of the benefits of free and open competition in the sale of
such services."
Pro-APR
Sentiment Is Strong
Sentiment for keeping the APR rule for office-holding remains
strong in spite of efforts by leaders to sell the change to
the Assembly delegates.
Seven of 16 comments on the change on the PRSA website argue
against dropping the APR rule for the Assembly.
The longest is by the Los Angeles chapter, fifth biggest
with just over 500 members.
Greg Waskul, president, said his chapter knows of no successful
group that "improved its business or enhanced its relationships
by creating the belief that lowering its standards for professionalism
and ethics was the right thing to do." The L.A. board
has voted against any bylaw change.
Sean Brickell, of Virginia Beach, Va., argued that decoupling
is "a bad idea regardless of how many people you ultimately
get to support it." Even if 100% of the members voted
for decoupling, it would "not change the core problem
that it's still a bad idea," he wrote.
Glynn Young of St. Louis wrote that the APR-"driven
exclusivity is draining vitality out of PRSA's leadership,
leading to a leadership vacuum." Anthony Galli of Princeton,
N.J., said that in his many years of practice at firms such
as Ayer & Partners and Hill & Knowlton and in his
own firm, "I came to realize that APR credentials were
little more useful than a pickpocket in a nudist colony."
APR Board
Has New Test
The APR board has worked for several years on a new APR test
that is multiple-choice and can be taken throughout the year
at hundreds of locations across the U.S.
APR supporters have been pleading for a chance to let members
take the $275 test and increase the number of APRs from the
current 4,100 (21% of total members).
Debbie Mason of Perry, Fla., PRSA board member and liaison
to the APR board, told a recent PRSA leaders' conference call
that the APR board has created "a terrific exam that
is rigorous, arduous, cutting edge and to the point."
She said the national board remains committed to APR "as
a personal and professional distinction" while at the
same time urging that APR be decoupled from Assembly membership.
However, APR supporters in the past have said that any retreat
from APR as a condition for leadership "sends the wrong
message" about the need for APR and could fatally damage
the program.
Some non-APRs, meanwhile, doubt the all-APR Assembly will
ever vote to remove the APR rule since the APRs would be in
the position of voting themselves out of power.
Removing the APR rule from the Assembly means little, say
the critics, because this body only meets once a year and
has little effect on day-to-day governance of the Society,
which would remain in the hands of the all-APR board.
APR supporters often talk of APRs as having shown "more
commitment," "more motivation," "going
the extra mile," "showing more professionalism"
than those who have not taken the one-day exam.
|