Following a 2002 survey in which PRSA members indicated a strong interest in having the Society become more involved in advocacy for the profession, the Society created the Advocacy Advisory Board to help the organization identify public and professional policy matters on which organization leaders should be heard and to provide support and staffing for a wide range of tactics to make certain that communication occurs in a timely fashion.

The initiative was in line with the three sound, consistent strategic pillars — advocacy, diversity and professional development — upon which PRSA leaders can build for the future and use as a touchstone for focusing priorities and policies for PRSA. And it was in line with the desire of many members that PRSA address issues stemming from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and other issues that impact the free flow of ideas throughout the world.

In the formative phases, the Advocacy Advisory Board set the tone for the kind of leadership it would provide: to demonstrate as much as possible by example and best practice the involvement of Society leaders on important issues, to focus on the value of PR public relations in the global community rather than a mere reaction to generalized and sometimes unfair characterizations of PR and public relations professionals.

In late 2002, PRSA's board of directors authorized PRSA to join the Council of Public Relations Firms, the Institute for Public Relations, the Arthur W. Page Society and the Public Affairs Council in filing a “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the much-publicized Nike v. Kasky appeal. Heralded as a test case for “corporate free speech,” the PRSA in its amicus brief urged the court not to restrict free speech by imposing strict limits on how organizations communicate with the public. In 2003, the newly formed PRSA Advocacy Advisory Board undertook its first major initiative: supporting the amicus brief by creating a variety of OpEd pieces from national and local leaders and with news releases articulating PRSA's position, and issuing statements when the Supreme Court announced its decision remanding the case to California courts on June 26, 2003 , and in September 2003 when Nike settled out of court without the issue being resolved.

Until that time, PRSA was usually conspicuous by the absence of its voice on important issues. Indeed, when the first news reports surfaced that the Supreme Court would consider the Nike case, PRSA was not represented at all in any of the news coverage. By the time the case concluded, however, quite the opposite was true — PRSA representatives were quoted in news reports from many of the major news organizations that covered the case.

Formation of the Advocacy Advisory Board could not have come at a more opportune time. In addition to the Nike v. Kasky case, that first full year of operation, 2003, saw the Advocacy Advisory Board also engage on other public policy issues:

• Supporting openness, honesty and candor, PRSA expressed opinions on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prior to the first compliance deadline for the new corporate financial disclosure and accountability act, which has been extremely controversial because of the burdens it has placed on public companies and the vagaries of some of the disclosure provisions.
• Stating PRSA's position opposing broadcast ownership regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission that would have led to more consolidation of media in the United States;
• Educating members and others in the profession about different ways to communicate effectively in an era of more segmented media and of the truncation of available editorial space in newspapers and magazines.
  

Continued Consistency and Bolder, Broader Voice in 2004

In 2004, a divisive election year in the United States , the group addressed issues that posed ethical and professional conundrums for PR practitioners across the political spectrum:

• The use and misuse of “527 organizations” and other front groups
• Full disclosure of sources and sponsorship of video news releases (VNRs) and other materials disseminated to the media
• The use of best public relations practices in political campaigns

Also “breaking news” concerning the profession — on local and national levels — demanded the attention of the Advocacy Board.

• The mayor of Los Angeles suspended all PR contracts with city agencies after allegations surfaced about over billing practices at one agency. This situation led to a quickly formed partnership between the Los Angeles PRSA Chapter and the Advocacy Advisory Board to speak out on behalf of the profession.
• Questions were raised in the media about disclosure of roles in corporations of people who were employed by PR agencies.
• A “wardrobe malfunction” and other live broadcasting fiascos led to some reactive threats of greater across-the-board censorship by the FCC and others.

2004 advocacy initiatives related to breakdowns in trust between the public and communicators, blurring of lines between professionalism and unprofessional behavior and a proliferation of misinformation and innuendo masquerading as communications tools in business, politics, government and in our everyday lives. A rise in the demand on PR practitioners to become better at what they do through broader professional education and a greater diversity of ideas and people in the profession also generated activity by the advocacy group.

To address all those issues, the Advocacy Advisory Board began playing both leadership and support roles as required. It provided materials and support requested by local Chapters, specifically in Los Angeles and Fort Worth , to assist with local activities. Along with the Board of Ethics and Professional Standards, it initiated a means for alerting PRSA members on the proper role for public relations practitioners related to emerging issues – an ongoing series of Professional Standards Advisories. The group also worked with other groups inside PRSA. It gathered data to lobby for inclusion of public relations and reputation management curriculum in graduate-level business programs in universities throughout the country.

The Advocacy Advisory Board reached out to individual members and other PRSA organizations for subject-matter expertise, as it did in formulating a PRSA position on the controversial issue of the use of military public affairs personnel in propaganda or “PsyOps” disinformation campaigns.

In 2005 the Advocacy Advisory Board spearheaded activities in what became a pivotal and defining year. Although the group continued with all-important groundwork to provide more education and support for advancing advocacy initiatives in local Chapters and throughout the organization, breaking news events demanded some quick and thoughtful action. Most news focused on revelations that government agencies through their public relations organizations had engaged well-known commentator Armstrong Williams and other journalists in non-disclosed roles to positively publicize government activities. The investigative arm of Congress characterized as illegal propaganda some VNRs produced on behalf of federal agencies. Allegations of criminal activities by public relations practitioners worked through the judicial system.

Advocacy stayed busy:

• Working with BEPS on a number of advisories to members about ethical considerations in day-to-day activities.
• Calling and participating in the first “ethics summit” of top leaders of public relations, business and media organizations — and following up on goals the group set for the profession.
• Testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on proposed legislation to more tightly regulate government-sponsored VNRs — the first time a PRSA president has testified before a congressional committee.
• Developing a comprehensive PRSA response to a proposed crackdown by the FCC on production, dissemination and broadcast of “pre-packaged” materials, including VNRs.
• Providing clarification to the media, through letters to the editor, opinion pieces and other vehicles about the importance of PR’s role in ghostwriting for technical experts and other tactical exercises.

Looking ahead, the Advocacy Advisory Board will continue strengthening PRSA's voice and providing tools for expanding advocacy throughout the organization and the industry. Importantly, the Board will reach out to Chapters to engage members as active participants in advocacy.

2006:  PRSA Advocacy Initiative

In 2006 the Advocacy Advisory Board focused on putting in place the infrastructure for a program that will provide PRSA with the strongest possible public voice.

Since it is the goal of the Advocacy Advisory Board to create a deeper understanding of the value of public relations among key internal and external stakeholders, the board urged local Chapters – on a voluntary basis – to expand the advocacy mission by creating officer-level Chapter Advocacy Officers. Ideally, the local CAO serves as a conduit for information to and from the national advocacy initiative, as well as a local, recognizable and consistent PRSA voice on important industry, societal and global issues. In 2006, 17 Chapters accepted the challenge and appointed local advocacy officers. Such local involvement is an absolute requirement for the evolution of a powerful grassroots initiative. The local PRSA advocates met quarterly and considered a plethora of activities, such as monitoring New York City’s diversity in advertising.

In 2006, the Advocacy Advisory Board widened the “local” expert by working closely with the PRSA Capitol Hill Initiative to review how persistent “inside-the-beltway” activities are addressed. In kind, the national organization expanded a series of communications and support programs, including holding regular conference calls involving advocacy officials from around the country; scheduling programs at the International Conference; exchanging e-mails on issues and legislation; and creating channels for development of issues identification and development from the ground-up. The Board also took steps toward a much-needed national issues development program, which also got underway in 2006. PRSSA underscored the importance of advocacy to the next generation of public relations professionals by creating its first board-level officer, the vice president for advocacy, enabling the younger voices in the organization to speak with more focused authority.

All of these activities aligned with the group’s mission statement, solidified in 2006, which charges the board to engage “both internal and external audiences … not only to enhance awareness of the important role public relations plays in a free society, but also to make significant contributions to public discourse on issues that affect the profession directly and those that impact free and open communications around the globe.”

As for specific 2006 issues, the advocacy advisory board investigated the potential for many hot-button items in the news. These included more open and timely communication from the public health sector on potential epidemics, such as bird flu, and on food labeling and product placement, as well as dealing with on-going ethical dilemmas, including the use of artificial “grassroots” campaigns to create an appearance of public groundswell where none exists.

Two issues too large to be contained in one 12-month period commanded considerable time and attention from the group. These issues, carried over from 2005 and continuing into 2007 involve reviewing our nation’s communication strategy and regulatory issues. This includes the FCC’s inquiry into VNRs and other issues, such as media ownership.

Looking ahead, the Advocacy Advisory Board will continue to strengthen PRSA's voice and provide tools to expand advocacy throughout the organization and the industry. A strong foundation is in place. PRSA has an advocacy program it can build upon.