ROUND 1: Bar any voting this year by the 46 leaders.

Why should top leaders of PRSA, elected by the Assembly, be denied a vote in the national governing body? After all, these leaders invest more time, money and energy than any of us. And since they represent fewer than 50 of 300-or-so votes, they don’t control outcomes. Let them vote.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 2: Vote to remain in continuous session electronically and otherwise until the next Assembly.

In other words, hold a virtual Assembly that tackles critical issues as they arise. The virtual Assembly never adjourns, which leaves ample time for debate and discussion among a broader range of members. It’s easy to accomplish using blogs, wikis and other social media – media that PRSA has been slow to adopt. A virtual Assembly would take member relations to a new level in the society.

Point: O’Dwyer

ROUND 3: Abolish the three-year rule and urge chapters to send experienced, independent members who have no strings attached (not interested in new biz leads, titles, etc.).

Term limits don’t work. Ask anyone in politics. The 3-year rule forces new blood into the Assembly, but it also squeezes out experienced delegates passionate about their profession. PRSA chapters should elect delegates who best represent their interests, even if those delegates serve 10 years or 20. On the practical side, eliminating the 3-year rule helps smaller chapters that sometimes struggle to recruit Assembly candidates. Remove the obstacles. Let members decide who represents them.

Point: O’Dwyer

ROUND 4: Eliminate any APR requirement throughout the bylaws (as urged by the 1999 Strategic Planning Committee).

Unless I misread the by-laws, PRSA has granted Jack’s wish – at least as it relates to the Assembly. The by-laws say “a delegate shall be either Accredited or a current board member of their respective chapters, districts or sections.” That’s restrictive, but it affords the society a substantial pool of candidates who have leadership experience in PRSA, and that experience is critical service in the Assembly.

If the society restricts any leadership access to APRs, then, by all means, remove those restrictions. Since the APR carries little or no value in the marketplace, it’s not a sought-after credential and has, in past years, limited participation by some of our brightest practitioners.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 5: Eliminate the rule that board members have to have headed chapters, districts or national committees or have voted in the Assembly (chokes off supply of leaders).

The rule assures that only those who’ve paid their dues can run for the highest offices. Is that a bad thing? How does a national leader gain experience without first serving at the chapter, district or national committee level? Perhaps we should revise the rule to include “any chapter officer,” but experience in the organization is critical to leadership and shouldn’t be discounted.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 6: Pass bylaw banning directors from returning to the board as officers or in any role whatever.

It’s not logical to propose removal of term limits on one group – Assembly delegates – then impose limits on the service of top leaders. I know how nasty, incestuous and horribly political the ascent to national office can be. But if you don’t agree with the nominating committee, you can challenge them. Remember Deborah Miller in ’95? If the Assembly decides that a former director is fit for another office, then let democracy do its work.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 7: Demand PRS leaders admit that staff costs on the annual conference are close to $2M and the reported staff costs of $100K-$189K have been misstated.

If staff costs are reported at one-tenth of actual, we need more than transparency, we need a special prosecutor. I don’t have access to PRSA’s financial records and while I can read balance sheets, I’m not trained to audit them We’ll call this round a draw – for now.

No Decision

ROUND 8: Demand PRS leaders show what the balance sheet looks like with $2M in dues deferred. There's no law against showing financials several ways.

Each year Assembly delegates receive a financial report, but Jack claims these financials aren’t part of the advance materials sent this year. He wonders if it’s a ploy by leadership to mask reality and diddle the membership. I’m not embracing his conspiracy theory, but my own experience of 25 years in PRSA tells me the society is less than forthcoming with financial data. Put it up for all to see, and answer member questions.

Point: O’Dwyer

ROUND 9: Demand that senior members join h.q. when job openings occur. The appointment of non-member Joseph DeRupo to a PR post at h.q. is an insult to the membership.

Should PRSA members get first dibs on PR jobs with the society? They should certainly be considered, even encouraged to apply. But a CEO must have a free hand to select staff. Only a small percentage of PR pros in the U.S. are members of the society, and PRSA members in New York City are rare as hen’s teeth. Restrict new hires to PRSA members and you severely limit your talent pool. That’s bad business.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 10: Demand that all leader speeches and a complete financial report be given to the delegates three weeks before the Assembly. Ban Assembly leader speeches.

Delegates need more time to study issues and consult their chapter boards prior to the Assembly meeting. Three weeks seems reasonable. To save time and money, PRSA should post Assembly materials to the Web 30 days before the conference. Advance posting will enable all members to review issues and offer feedback to their delegates.

Ban leader speeches? Having served in a few Assemblies, I’m for that! But it’s unfair and unwise for an organization of communicators to muzzle its leaders. Since the delegates will have copies of the remarks in advance, they can choose whether to focus on the speeches or on their Blackberries.

Point: O’Dwyer

ROUND 11: Demand that the printed members' directory again be published (PRS had $4.3M in cash as of June 30 and could well afford to do this).

I polled some colleagues, and they agree with Jack. They miss the paper directory and feel it’s a tangible value that PRSA delivers. I disagree. The paper directory is a waste of resources and a tool none of us needs. The printed directory is outdated long before it’s published. Conversely, the online version can be updated continuously by PRSA staff and by members themselves. An online directory is searchable, a printed one is not.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 12: Allow "at-large student membership (any student could join as a student member of PRS), which would help them in job-seeking and bring in revenues to PRS.

PRSSA, earlier this year, launched a pilot program that allows students from non-affiliated schools to become at-large members. I will argue, but not in this post, that shrinking the number of student chapters by half would actually enhance the quality of PR grads from the schools that qualify under the new rules I would propose, and would bring the very best practitioners into PRSA membership. But that’s a post for another day.

If you care about PR education as I do, there’s a significant online discussion underway on a number of the blogs and at myragan.com. Start by reading Amanda’s excellent interview with Professor Don Wright.

Point: PRSA

ROUND 13: Allow chapter-only membership, relieving chapters of having to convince new members to pay $225 dues to national before they can join a chapter.

Brilliant, Jack. Imagine joining a local chapter at one dues level, then opting for national affiliation (at a higher cost) IF you see the value. A local-membership option would expand chapter membership dramatically and, in the process, the prospect list for national membership.

Why would a local member join the national group? That’s the unspoken question in Jack’s proposal, isn’t it? They’ll join if the national organization demonstrates value. For most PR pros, the value of PRSA derives from local involvement. The programs, the networking, the business leads are close by. Only 4% of members attend the national conference. Shifting resources to the chapters and away from the central organization would enhance PRSA’s value.

Point: O’Dwyer

Did you keep a running score? Me neither. But a quick review shows 7 rounds for PRSA, 5 for O’Dwyer, and one tie. That’s a pretty close fight, and Jack nearly scored knockouts in Round 2 (the virtual Assembly idea) and Round 13.

But enough with the boxing metaphors.

PRSA leadership needs to listen to Jack O’Dwyer and all its critics. Jack can help his own cause by toning down the rhetoric. Is he outrageous at times? Yes. But he’s also is a proponent of transparent, ethical PR practice. Rather than fearing Jack’s barbs, PRSA should be reviewing the best of his ideas and use those ideas to advance the profession.

But it looks as though the opposite is happening. Just this morning, Jack told me that PRSA has denied him press credentials for the Assembly. If that’s true, the decision in this fight goes to Jack, with PRSA disqualified on the basis of censorship.

Right now, public relations doesn’t need a cheerleader, it needs – well – it needs a few referees to enforce the tenets of good practice. Hang in there, Jack. You’ll get another shot.