This is how PRSA announced the defeat of these two amendments. In a letter to members from Chair Olson, she said:

“Bylaws proposals 21-02 and 21-03 recommended moving from a required minimum of PRSA leadership experience or length of time in the profession to competency-based qualifications to serve as Board Directors and Officers, respectively. The proposals included a recommendation to revise the “must have” APR accreditation to “strongly preferred.” Both proposals failed to pass by a two-thirds majority, with votes of 137 in favor and 69 against for 21-02, and 126 in favor to 79 against for 21-03.

Despite the outcome, it’s important to note the two proposals did generate strong support among our delegates with Proposal 21-02 failing to pass by just one vote.”

I remain convinced that the question about PRSA leadership is important and should be the subject of an organized educational effort involving the entire Society. I’ve heard that some on the new Board are interested in trying again on these amendments in 2022. PRSA knows how to have a Society-wide conversation. I have spelled this out several times. If this question persists, let’s let everybody in on the conversation. Then, let the chips fall.

Have a pleasant Fall,