He joined the Charlotte advertising, marketing and PR firm of Luquire George Andrews in 1994 as an A/E and became VP, management supervisor in 2001 and SVP in 2008. Previously he was with the Charlotte Organizing Committee as manager, 1994 NCAA Final Four (1992-94) and with Host Communications from 1983 to 1992, rising to SVP.
 Tate |
He supported formation of a Young Professionals group at the chapter; boosted luncheon meeting attendance; set up a mentoring program; reached out to PRSS chapter at UNC Charlotte; supported APR process as kickoff session organizer, study session instructor and Readiness Review panelist, and worked with Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Providence Day School high school students interested in ad/PR careers.
Tate has not commented on issues raised with him by this website and four members of the Society College of Fellows. The issues are posted at the end of this article.
In answering the question on how he would “embrace diversity,” Tate said that the Society “may be best described as a Swiss watch—a complex instrument with many moving parts. Members are involved at many levels—chapters, districts, sections and other affinity groups—and the diversity of our membership certain reflects our society at large in terms of gender age, race, etc.”
We would argue the above point about “race” since only a couple of percentage points of the Society membership is African-American and only two African-Americans have served on the board in the 63-year history of the Society.
For the second year in a row, the Society rejected the candidacy of an African-American, Regina Lewis. Ofield Dukes was rejected last year. The 2011 board will be all-white for the fourth year in a row unless new candidates step forward before Sept. 16.
Tate further said he believes in the concept of “servant leadership” as espoused by Robert Greenleaf. It emphasizes “collaboration, trust, empathy and the ethical use of power,” wrote Tate. “Our objective as Society leaders should be to enhance the growth of individuals in the organization to increase personal involvement and teamwork."
Answering the question on providing “value” to members in these “tough economic times,” Tate said the Society “must demonstrate value more intentionally than ever before to these individuals who are more likely paying dues out of their own pockets.”
He says the Society “must define advocacy and thought leadership for the PR profession. Our leaders should be speaking to issues like the impact of technology on our profession, the changing role of practitioners in large organizations, and addressing a general lack of trust in PR from the American public.
“At times, the Society has struggled to identify and articulate issues for the profession. We shouldn’t fear being controversial by taking a position on topical issues of the day.”
We would like Tate and the other candidates to take stands on the issues below that face the Society. Candidates have the power to bring about reforms if they choose to do so.
--What rationale allows the APR leadership to keep secret the names of the 2010 delegates? Rank-and-file members can’t get this list and delegates don’t even have to provide their names if they don’t feel like it. Delegates must sign a form to get it. This is the world’s only secret legislature.
--How can the Society claim it follows Robert’s Rules when it violates at least five of the major rules including the one that says an “assembly” sits over the board? Anathema to RR is proxy voting but the Assembly used 56 proxies to vote in the use of proxies last year.
--What is the rationale that blocks (since 2005) members from getting the transcript of the Assembly?
--Why can't the Society audiocast the important 2010 Assembly when it would be cheap and easy to do so? Leaders have been seeking greater member involvement for years.
--Where is IRS Form 990 that shows the salaries/benefits of the six highest paid staffers? The audit was released in early April so there doesn't seem to be any excuse for delaying this important financial information, originally due May 15. Last year the Assembly delegates did not get to see it because it was released so late in the year.
--How could the Society pick Philadelphia twice for the national conference (2007 and 2013) while ignoring New York where it had its biggest conference ever in 2004?
--How can leaders justify their silence to members on the subject of a PDF of the members’ directory? This would be both cheap and easy to do and would be 100% up-to-date. Revisions could be sent periodically.
--How could chair Gary McCormick declare on July 19 that direct election of board/officers is a dead issue because of “administrative, technical and legal costs?” The 2010 "Leadership Assembly" ordered him to make a report on this. Plenty of services offer to handle direct elections at low cost.
--What justification is there for keeping secret all but seven of the 55 h.q. staff's names? How can staff turnover be tracked?
--Isn’t it inconsistent for the Society to demand that Jack O'Dwyer pay the full $1,275 registration fee to cover the 2010 national conference while allowing PR News editor Scott Van Camp free admission? The Society gives no rationale for this.
--Isn’t it undemocratic for APRs to block any mention of the Committee to Promote a Democratic PRSA in Tactics Online and to block the CPDP from using the 21,000-member e-mail list?