I had to drink my espresso first before I talk about this. This is huge issue to me and I am passionate about the discussion and the role of Advocacy in PRSA.

At the PRSSA National Conference in Salt Lake City this week PRSA Vice-president of Advocacy, Mike Cherenson; PRSA Advocacy board member Kelly Groehler; and PRSSA Vice-president of Advocacy Lisa Travnik conducted a discussion with PRSSA students about the important issues that are facing public relations practitioners now and in the future. Moreover, wanted to see what issues the students believe is priority.

The discussion was productive; discussing issues such as transparency, ethics, corporate bullying of agencies and that 10 percent of public relations practitioners are affiliated with PRSA and less than that are APR certified.

The discussion that was discussed that I believe is the most important is defining the “science” of public relations and adopting that as our definition.

Why should this be a priority? If we conducted a communications audit with PR professionals, pre-professionals and educators we will have so many mixed messages of what PR is.

Furthermore, if you were to go to Google and input “define: public relations” you would see many different definitions of PR.

There should be one definition of public relations that is no more that three sentences!

After we develop a unified definition then we can truly attack other issues facing public relations. Without tackling that first we will continue to have mixed messages about the purpose of public relations and will lack a unified front. As PRSA members we must agree on the same values, beliefs and goals that affect public relations, period. Not doing so we will continue to fight ourselves.

For my preferred definition of the “science” of PR refer to my “Lets Define Public Relations Now” blog.

I have been convinced that the PRSA/PRSSA Advocacy board is passionate about improving the profession. However, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t challenge the advocacy board.

I challenge the advocacy board to discuss issues of ethics to the public when one of our colleagues doesn’t follow the PRSA Code of Ethics regardless of who they are in public. If Edelman or Hill & Knowlton practiced an unethical procedure and it becomes publicized; PRSA must be the voice that discusses the situation and offer solutions so that the public understands that we have an ethical code and that we encourage all of our practitioners to abide by it.

I challenge the advocacy board to call out those who are not affiliated with PRSA who practice PR unethically regardless of who they are. I would want the advocacy board to defend our profession and encourage those who do not practice PR ethically or do not know PRSA ethical procedures to join and get educated in the proper practice of PR.

I challenge the advocacy board lead the charge in defining the “science” of public relations for the final time and destroy this stalemate. The science of PR should be easy we can always debate about the functions. Example: Psychology has a universal definition, however, there are many theories inside the umbrella of Psychology like psychoanalytic, cognitive or humanistic. It is ok to have diversions of the “practice” PR but the umbrella must be the “science.”

I challenge the advocacy board to recognize practitioners who strictly follow ethical procedures and to use them as models for other agencies.

I challenge the advocacy board to have constant communication with chapters to ensure all are on the same page and practice advocacy in their area.

I commend the advocacy board on their efforts. I believe this will be the board that will spark that change that needs to take place in PRSA. I believe this board will take our dialog in to action and encourage the young practitioner to take responsibility with moving the profession forward.

They have my support. I would gladly, in fact, I hope they would ask me to be apart of this revolution to ensure that we are here to guide in the free flow of information among the public; not to spin information only for our benefit.