PRSA Hart / West Assembly Delegate Proposal 1806 Nonpartisan

PRSA Assembly Delegate Webinar
Proposed Bylaws Presentation
Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Proposal 1806
Add Nonpartisan to PRSA Purpose and Limitations
Submitted by Petition and Authored by
Susan Hart, APR, Fellow PRSA and
Mary Beth West, APR, Fellow PRSA

Proposal 1806 – Add Nonpartisan to PRSA Purpose and Limitations
Overview of Discussion Points
• Current bylaw language
• Proposed bylaw language
• Rationale points:
1. Multi-incident, years-long pattern of partisanship – intentional or perceived
2. No accountability to existing social media policy or any transparent standards
of advocacy operations, relative to partisan commenting
3. Lack of disclosures (resulting in unprecedented list of improvements to
leadership by BEPS on Oct. 2, 2017)
4. Habitual inability to keep commentary and decisions balanced regarding
political issues / incidents … instead veering into partisan-leaning territory
• Misinformation given by leadership as rationales not to support

Current Bylaw Language
ARTICLE II - Purposes and Limitations
• Section 1. The Society is organized and shall be operated exclusively as a not-
for-profit trade association within the meaning of Section 501(c)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Regulations thereunder, as they now
exist or as they may hereafter be amended (collectively referred to as “the
Code”), and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Code. Its
specific purposes are set forth in the Society’s Articles of Incorporation. The
Society shall not directly or indirectly conduct or carry on any activities not
permitted to be conducted or carried on by an organization described in Code
Sections 501(c)(6) and 501(a), or by an organization formed under the New
York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (“N-PCL”), as the same may be amended
or supplemented.

RECOMMENDED Bylaw Language
ARTICLE II - Purposes and Limitations
• Section 1. The Society is organized and shall be operated exclusively as a not-
for-profit trade association within the meaning of Section 501(c)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Regulations thereunder, as they now
exist or as they may hereafter be amended (collectively referred to as “the
Code”), and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Code. THE
SOCIETY SHALL OPERATE AND COMMUNICATE AS A NONPARTISAN
ORGANIZATION. Its specific purposes are set forth in the Society’s Articles of
Incorporation. The Society shall not directly or indirectly conduct or carry on
any activities not permitted to be conducted or carried on by an organization
described in Code Sections 501(c)(6) and 501(a), or by an organization formed
under the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (“N-PCL”), as the same
may be amended or supplemented.

• Nonpartisanship was part of PRSA’s organizational tradition, practice and
brand voice for decades.
• PRSA succeeded in advocating for the profession and in service to ethical
standards for years, without invoking any perceived partisan-leaning stance.
We must return to that consistent standard.
• In recent years, we’ve seen consistently slanted, partisan-leaning
communications from PRSA’s leadership and the subtle weaponization of the
PRSA brand – by acts of both commission and omission (statements made
juxtaposed with deafening silence, e.g., refusal to apply same professed
standards of criticism to sources of infractions on both sides of political aisle)
• PRSA leadership itself now appears confused on the issue with conflicting
statements about its own stance…making the case all-the-more critical for
consistent bylaw language.
Key Hart/West Rationale Points for
“Nonpartisan” Added to Bylaws

In Recent Years, PRSA Leadership Has Continuously Exhibited
Partisan-Leaning Communications, Meriting That the Assembly
Codify “Nonpartisan” in Bylaws
Examples . . .

Juxtaposed with the Extent of PRSA Political-Leaning Commentary During
Previous Eight-Year Presidential Administration, Pre-2016:
<silence>
(PRSA never issued a single commentary or advocacy statement admonishing ethical
issues or inaccuracies put forth by either the Obama Administration or the Hillary
Clinton Campaign, from 2009-2016)

Juxtaposed with the Extent of PRSA Political-Leaning Commentary During
Previous Eight-Year Presidential Administration, Pre-2016:
“The Public Relations Society of America selected White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for the 2009 PR Professional of the Year Award”
“The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)
presented its highly coveted Public Relations
Professional of the Year award to White House Press
Secretary Robert L. Gibbs for his groundbreaking use
of new communications techniques and technologies,
as well as successful delivery of campaign messages
to a broad electorate . . .
“Robert Gibbs and his team revolutionized the way
presidential candidates speak to voters by engaging
best practices in current communications techniques
and technologies,” said PRSA Chair and CEO Michael
Cherenson. “He transformed static, one-way
messaging into a dynamic dialogue to engage an
expansive electorate like never before.”

Inappropriate Social Media Posts by a PRSA National Officer
In 2016 Presidential Election Year
Used Combined Personal/Professional Twitter Account Followed by Thousands of PRSA Members/PRSSA Students

Use of personal social media account for personal commentary AND PRSA business (which
identified leadership role with PRSA) violated PRSA’s Social Media Policy.
Noncompliance was never addressed or enforced in this officer’s case.
http://apps.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/GuidelinesLogos/SocialMediaPolicy/secured/PRSASocialMediaPolicy.pdf

PRSA Admonishing / Calling Out People In Political Realm by Name
(non-PRSA members who are not public relations professionals and/or who have never signed PRSA’s Code of Ethics)
President and
aides called out
by name on
PRSA website

PRSA Admonishing / Calling Out People In Political Realm by Name
(non-PRSA members who are not public relations professionals and/or who have never signed PRSA’s Code of Ethics)
Messaging at local /
regional-level
speaking
engagement
targeting specific
political officials,
reflected in
attendee comment

PRSA Admonishing / Calling Out People In Political Realm by Name Cont’d in 2018
(of non-PRSA members who are not public relations professionals and/or who have never signed PRSA’s Code of Ethics)

PRSA Also Promoted / Endorsed (and Shielded from Criticism) Partisan-Leaning
USC-Annenberg Survey (with Flawed Methodology) in Summer 2017

PRSA Also Promoted / Endorsed (and Shielded from Criticism) Partisan-Leaning
USC-Annenberg Survey (with Flawed Methodology) in Summer 2017
In addition to using their
unfettered access to PRSA
members for survey sample (which
leadership allowed / promoted),
USC also placed open survey links
on other websites . . . Which
anyone working inside or outside of
PR could have clicked to take the
survey. Any person could even take
the survey multiple times. In this
solicitation (at left), USC promises,
“The questions are quick and easy
but the answers will be interesting
and provocative.”

PRSA Also Promoted / Endorsed and Shielded from Criticism Partisan-Leaning USC-
Annenberg Survey (with Independent Sources Citing Methodology as Haphazard / Flawed)
This print story in the July 2017 edition of Tactics spotlights the USC
Annenberg survey results under the headline, "Is the White House
Comms Team Staining PR's Image?" (NOTE: Online edition of the
story was later deleted.)
No disclosure that Annenberg is a $30,000 PRSA sponsor.
The report also includes no mention of the Annenberg survey
methodology, which included a grossly slanted over-index of self-
identified liberals responding to the survey (twice the national
average, according to 2017 Gallup figures) and under-index of self-
identified conservatives (less than half the national average, per
Gallup). A multitude of other methodology issues are not
mentioned either. Survey later re-positioned by USC-Annenberg as
“key convenience sample.”

When an outreach was made to
PRSA publications to seek a
correction of the PRSA record
regarding USC-Annenberg’s
questionable survey methodology,
PRSA declined, saying, “This is not
a topic that we want to address in
PRSA publications.”

PRSA’s handling of USC-Annenberg
political survey (given USC’s
$30,000 PRSA sponsorship) failed
to comply with PRSA’s BEPS Ethical
Standards Advisory ESA-19 (Sept.
2014), “Disclosure and
Transparency in Native Advertising
and Sponsored Content.”

PRSA’s Board of Ethics & Professional Standards (BEPS) Felt that Hart / West
Concerns Held Enough Merit to Urge 2017 National Board Leadership to Adhere to
New Social Media AND Disclosure Policies, Among Other Changes:
PRSA leadership never
advised BEPS that a Social
Media Policy already existed.
Partial excerpt of three-page
BEPS Memo to National Board,
Oct. 2, 2017 (never revealed by
board in any of its 2017 meeting
minutes)
No policy /
procedure on
avoiding
partisanship via
advocacy
statements is
known of /
viewable as of
Sept. 10, 2018

PRSA Leadership’s “New”
Advocacy Decision Tree
Risks of perceived
partisanship not
mentioned as a
criteria point for
evaluation or as a
point of concern
re: filtering issues

We Are Going to Lose Members Over Partisanship Concerns . . .
(correspondence by now-former PRSA member, below, shared with his permission)
PRSA,
My relationship with PRSA goes back nearly 20 years. As a young PR professional in New York City, I found PRSA’s training programs to be exceptional and I prized the networking
opportunities the organization offered. Now, I find PRSA trainings to be an effective and important way to grow and develop my team.
However, I recently made the decision not to renew my PRSA membership and I wanted to share the reasons why.
Like most members, my company paid for my membership. And like most companies, mine has a policy that forbids company funds in being used for partisan political activities.
Historically, this was not a problem when PRSA stuck to its stated mission: to “make communications professionals smarter, better prepared and more connected through all stages of
their career.” However, the recent shift in both direction and purpose have brought with it legal and compliance issues for members. That PRSA is now a 501c6 business league lobbying
organization and has begun to engage in overtly partisan political activity has made my further involvement with the organization problematic. This newly political direction also means
I’m unwilling to pay for the membership on my own.
It was also recently brought to my attention that public sector (government) employees as well as some companies who do government contracting have additional responsibilities
under federal law, including the Hatch Act (sec. 734). Public sector employees may not secure funding from their employer (i.e., taxpayers) for membership in partisan political
organizations or partisan activities (although they are free to do so with their own money and their own time). Some private sector employees who handle government contracts may
face similar limitations. Individuals should seek their own legal counsel whether they are violating any employer policies or laws by continuing their relationships with organizations like
PRSA that engage in political activities, or in accepting employer funding for PRSA memberships, trainings, or events.
I have enjoyed my association with PRSA over the years and I’m sad to see it end.
Best regards,
Lance Longwell
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.
Corporate Communications and Public Relations
Malvern, PA

Learning  Ethics  Advocacy  Retooling  Networking  Inclusion  New Ideas  Growth
CLOSING COMMENTS

Learning  Ethics  Advocacy  Retooling  Networking  Inclusion  New Ideas  Growth
PRSA Board Rationales NOT to Endorse Nonpartisanship Include
Misstatements of Fact and Contradictory Comments

Source: Chair Anthony D’Angelo
(“Feedback for PRSA” MyPRSA Online Community)
Comment by Hart/West:
1) Yes, this proposal attempts to “limit
PRSA’s purposes” . . . of operating or
communicating in a partisan manner.
2) A clear definition WAS PROVIDED . . .
Reason given
by leadership
not to
endorse in
Aug. 2018

Definition of “Nonpartisan” Was Provided to
National Board
Excerpt of
original
bylaw
proposal
document
provided for
board
review
“For the purposes of this proposal,
nonpartisan is defined as an adjective
meaning not biased or partisan; free from party
affiliation or designation, especially toward any
particular political group.
“Synonyms include fair, just, even-handed, fair-
minded, unbiased, unprejudiced,
nondiscriminatory, unbigoted, egalitarian, with
no ax to grind, without fear or favor, balanced,
open-minded, conscientious and sensible.”

Only weeks ago, Chair D’Angelo seemed to communicate that nonpartisanship
was a “must” for PRSA and that the alternative would be “damaging” . . .
“PRSA must be non-partisan, because
we welcome and represent members
of diverse backgrounds, viewpoints
and ideologies, and to take a
politically partisan stance would be to
alienate portions of our membership.
Such a strategy would be
counterproductive and damaging to
our Society.”
-Chair Anthony D’Angelo
MyPRSA Open Forum, Aug. 8, 2018

Now, the tune has changed.
According to PRSA’s New (Sept. 2018) “Rationale Not to Support,” (Which Differs From the Aug. 2018 Reason Given of
Allegedly Not Having Been Supplied A Definition of “Nonpartisan”), the Board Now Deems Nonpartisanship as
“Potentially Dangerous”…
. . . but the possibility of confusion
is too unimportant when it comes
to PRSA's consistent pattern of
partisan-leaning public statements?
In other words, the leeway to
appear partisan if it suits
leadership's purposes trumps any
need for PRSA to actually BE what
is says it is (per Sentence 1, above,
"PRSA is a nonpartisan organization
and should remain that way.")

PRSA Leadership offered “compromises”? . . .
Excerpt from
PRSA Board’s
Sept. 2018
Rationale Not to
Endorse
PRSA leadership has a documented track record of not following through with its own policies and
procedures – therefore, any “compromise” to forego a bylaw amendment in favor of more P&Ps (which
members aren’t even allowed to see) simply would have resulted in more status-quo.
Cases in Point: 1) Not following its own Social Media Policy, which a national officer in 2016 was allowed to disregard flagrantly with some
30+ partisan and even distasteful / vulgar tweets – with no consequence; 2) Not following its own sponsor disclosure requirements per BEPS
ESA-19, in the case of USC-Annenberg’s $30K sponsorship to PRSA amid a highly partisan, flawed survey; 3) Failing to disclose in 2017 board
meeting minutes the Oct. 2nd BEPS memo to the National Board Executive Committee.

Getting in the weeds here . . .
Since PRSA national leadership has shown a complete inability to even “check the personal
social media posts” of its own leadership team members for compliance to existing PRSA
policies, the bar of expectation here remains very low. So the answer is no . . . No such hoops
would ever have to be engaged. Clearly, leadership is posing “in the weeds” scenarios here in
an effort to overthink, overcomplicate, muddy the waters and derail a very simple
proposition as to its national-level identity and the communication of that identity.
Excerpt from
PRSA Board’s
Sept. 2018
Rationale Not
to Endorse

It’s really a “power” thing . . .
Finally, we get to the core of what leadership’s opposition is about: power and carte-blanche ability to
engage partisanship when its suits leadership to do so, with no accountability to members or anyone else to
stay true to even the pretense of nonpartisanship.
• Arguably, based on the evidence, leadership has demonstrated an inability to apply a consistent standard as
to who gets called-out publicly in the political realm by PRSA and who doesn’t.
• To the board’s question of “Who decides what is partisan and what is not?” – is this question as confounding
to the board as determining what’s ethical and what’s not? Is leadership truly at a point where it simply
can’t discern the difference in partisan/nonpartisan and ethical/unethical without guidance?
Excerpt from
PRSA Board’s
Sept. 2018
Rationale Not to
Endorse
Sept. 2018 acknowledgement that a
definition WAS provided, contrary to
board’s August rationale…

For More Information . . .
Join the #TakeBackPRSA Facebook Group for open discussion on
all Hart/West bylaw proposals, including #1806 supporting
nonpartisanship.
Feel free to use the hashtag for social media commenting and
dialogue.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TakeBackPRSA/
Susan Hart, APR, Fellow PRSA -- susanhartpr@gmail.com
Mary Beth West, APR, Fellow PRSA – mb@marybethwest.com

PRSA Hart / West Assembly Delegate Proposal 1806 Nonpartisan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PRSA Hart / West Assembly Delegate Proposal 1806 Nonpartisan

Similar to PRSA Hart / West Assembly Delegate Proposal 1806 Nonpartisan (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PRSA Hart / West Assembly Delegate Proposal 1806 Nonpartisan