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.