The possibility of imposing sanctions on PR professionals who violate the PRSA Code of Ethics appear remote, based on a discussion held by the PRSA Delegate Assembly at the 2008 International Conference in Detroit on October 25.

The Assembly departed from its usual focus on bylaws and resolutions and instead engaged in a “strategic dialogue” to address the question: What role should PRSA play in establishing practice standards for the public relations profession?

Delegates were randomly assigned to tables seating six or seven people, each table representing local PRSA chapters from around the country. Delegates were given a background paper outlining the history of the PRSA Code of Ethics and presenting five possible directions the organization could take to crack down on unethical behavior by those who call themselves public relations practitioners.

The choices were:

1. Put sanctions back into the PRSA Code of Ethics. The first PRSA Code of Ethics was written in 1950 and added enforcement provisions nine years later. In 2000, PRSA dropped the enforcement system and adopted a new Code focused on personal commitments to professional standards.

2. Take another look at licensure. In 2006, the Board of Ethics and Professional Standards (BEPS) called for consideration of Professional Licensing and Certification for the public relations profession. It would require PR practitioners to hold state certifications or licenses to practice. Violators could be expelled from the profession and even jailed if they are out of compliance with their certifications and/or licenses.

3. Continue to explore certification. BEPS also considered certification as a way of improving standards of practice. While certification falls short of actual licensing, it helps assure that the practitioner is competent and capable of delivering relevant services through the credibility of the examination process. However, there is concern that it might compete with the Accreditation in Public Relations (APR) process.

4. Create a compendium of practice standards. This approach was considered to be flexible and able to address issues as they arise; it would also complement the PRSA Code of Ethics and would position PRSA as the leader for professional practice standards. However, it would be difficult to enforce.

5. Maintain the status quo. This would allow PRSA to focus its limited resources on areas where there would be a greater return on investment; however, there were concerns that individuals who appear to violate the Code would continue to avoid being disciplined.

The Delegates took an electronic vote and by a 52 percent margin selected—Choice 6: None the above. However, the other choices in order of votes cast were:
• Create a compendium of practice standards;
• Continue to explore certification;
• Put sanctions back into the PRSA Code of Ethics;
• Take another look at licensure; and
• Maintain the status quo.

The issue of putting teeth into the PRSA Code of Ethics will no doubt be a subject of discussion at the chapter level until next year’s International Conference. Ethics violations continue to be a matter of concern for many PR practitioners; as one Delegate remarked, “Let’s face it: the words ‘public relations’ and ‘ethics’ are not frequently used in the same sentence.”

So, what do YOU think? Please reply by selecting what choice YOU would make to determine the future of YOUR profession.

Fred Whiting, APR, was one of 14 Delegates representing PRSA-NCC at the 2008 Delegate Assembly. The National Capital Chapter had more delegates than any other PRSA chapter.