Ethical Standards

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmme21

Journal of Mass Media Ethics

ISSN: 0890-0523 (Print) 1532-7728 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmme20

From Enforcement to Education: The Development of PRSA's Member Code of Ethics 2000

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick

To cite this article: Kathy R. Fitzpatrick (2002) From Enforcement to Education: The Development of PRSA's Member Code of Ethics 2000, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17:2, 111-135, DOI: 10.1207/S15327728JMME1702_03

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327728JMME1702_03

Published online: 17 Nov 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 259

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

From Enforcement to Education: The Development of PRSA’s Member Code of Ethics 2000

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick DePaul University

� The Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Member Code of Ethics 2000 assumes professional standing for PRSA members, emphasizes public relations’ ad- vocacy role, and stresses education rather than enforcement as key to improving in- dustry standards. Code development involved more than 2 years of research and writing and the counsel of outside ethics experts. In this article I review the code de- velopment process, providing an insider’s perspective on the ethics initiative.

Public Relations Society of America (PRSA or the Society) members marked the new millennium by adopting a new code of ethics approved by PRSA’s Assembly in October 2000 (see Appendix). The code, which re- placed standards of practice established half a century ago and revised several times since, reflects the Society’s desire to position PRSA as the eth- ics brand leader in the industry and to raise the ethical performance of public relations professionals (S. L. Waltz, Jr., personal communication, June 12, 2001).

PRSA’s newest code differs from its predecessors in three significant ways. The 2000 code assumes professional standing for PRSA members; it emphasizes public relations’ advocacy role; and it contains no enforcement provisions. In the words of code drafters, the code is aspirational and edu- cational, designed to motivate ethical behavior rather than punish ethical misbehavior (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2000). The code also is a reflection of changing times and the increased expectations for professional responsibility in public relations.

This article traces the development of PRSA’s Member Code of Ethics 2000. It is based on research PRSA’s Board of Ethics and Professional Stan- dards (BEPS or Ethics Board) and the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) con- ducted; archival reports and correspondence related to PRSA’s codes of ethics; personal communication with BEPS members and BEPS legal coun- sel; and personal communication with selected current and former PRSA leaders. The work also records the observations of the author, who has

Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17(2), 111–135 Copyright © 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

been a member of PRSA’s Ethics Board for almost 6 years and participated in writing the 2000 code of ethics.

A New Code

Two primary factors influenced PRSA’s decision to write a new code of ethics: recognition that the existing standards were no longer sufficient for addressing contemporary issues and practices and the need to address growing concerns related to code enforcement (PRSA, 2000c; R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001; S. D. Pisinski, personal communi- cation, July 2, 2001; and S. L. Waltz, Jr., personal communication, June 12, 2001). According to Robert Frause, BEPS chairman for 10 years and the leader of the code development process, the punitive nature of the existing code was a significant factor. “The existing code was no longer acceptable or appropriate because the focus was not on ethical public relations prac- tices. The focus was on whether someone committed a violation and whether he or she should be sanctioned” (R. D. Frause, personal communi- cation, June 11, 2001).

Of some additional significance was the perceived need to enhance the credibility of the public relations field. PRSA leaders were concerned about a 1998 study that found Americans ranked the public relations field last in credibility among 42 job categories or functions (ERC, 1999b). Although a new code of ethics alone could not change such perceptions, it could help raise the standard for ethical performance, according to PRSA leaders (S. L. Waltz, Jr., personal communication, June 12, 2001).

Serious discussions about code revision began in 1998, when the PRSA Ethics Board requested a formal meeting with the PRSA Board of Directors to address problems related to the PRSA Code of Professional Standards and Practices (last revised in 1988). As the group responsible for investigat- ing potential violations of the PRSA code, BEPS members were particu- larly concerned with enforcement matters. (For a detailed discussion on the problems related to PRSA code enforcement, see the preceding article in this issue of JMME, Fitzpatrick, 2002). Frause (personal communication, March 17, 1999) outlined their views in a memorandum to the PRSABoard:

Over the past three to six years the Board of Ethics and Professional Stan- dards has confronted what we believe is a serious change in attitudes of PR practitioners in general as well as PRSA members specifically, regarding ethi- cal practices and standards. What we have experienced is an eroding regard for PRSA’s Code of Ethics and Professional Standards. What used to be clear violations of the code now go unresolved due to numerous loopholes in the way the code is written, administered and supported by the organization’s

112 From Enforcement to Education

leadership and members as well. We believe the once dominant belief that PRSA’s ethics code had meaning and was strictly enforced is now defunct.

Our experience now reveals that members who are accused of ethical mis- conduct employ attorneys and legal counsel who make mincemeat of viola- tion accusations as they relate to our current code. BEPS’ limited powers to gather information make it even more difficult to discover the truth and take action. Pure and simple, our entire committee is frustrated, powerless and unable to do justice to the spirit of the PRSA Code of Ethics and Professional Standards. We believe it is time for all of us to roll up our sleeves and pursue a meaningful code of ethics and professional standards that will work for the Society now and in the years to come.

Convinced by BEPS that some action was needed, PRSA officials sched- uled a “Summit on Ethics” and contracted with the nonprofit ERC to un- dertake a preliminary study of the PRSA code and recommend improve- ments (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001). As part of its assessments, the ERC (1999b) interviewed leading public relations profes- sionals, held a focus group with 8 to 12 public relations professionals, and surveyed 300 public relations practitioners.

The [existing] code was outdated, incomplete, too

detailed, not clearly or cleanly written, operational rather than aspirational, too limited in terms of explanations, and provided

no positive incentives for compliance.

The ERC presented its report at the summit held in early 1999 during a regularly scheduled meeting of the PRSA Board of Directors. The research (ERC, 1999b) supported BEPS’s proposal for a new code. Most compelling was the preliminary finding that PRSA members believed that PRSA’s code was largely ineffective. At the same time, members were concerned that eliminating the enforcement provisions entirely would be a mistake. Several reasons—some contradictory—were cited for why the code was considered inadequate. According to the research participants, the code was outdated, incomplete, too detailed, not clearly or cleanly written, op- erational rather than aspirational, too limited in terms of explanations, and provided no positive incentives for compliance.

Concerns related to “spin,” business practices, and professionalism also were raised through the research (ERC, 1999b). One interviewee suggested

Fitzpatrick 113

that “in some ways, lying permeates everything we do” (p. 5). Participants also cited billing, human resources, conflicts of interest, and marketing is- sues as problematic.

The ERC (1999b) recommended that the PRSA code “be rewritten and its enforcement provisions revised as part of a larger campaign to position PRSA as the integrity leader in the public relations field” (p. 1). As part of the process, the ERC suggested a comprehensive assessment of issues that should be addressed in the new code and the development or enhance- ment of ethics expertise on the part of code drafters and PRSA staff who would support the new code.

The summit proved to be the turning point in PRSA’s decision to pro- ceed with a new code of ethics. Although PRSA leaders were hesitant to concede that code enforcement was not working, they recognized the need to update the existing code, and they agreed that ethics should be the hall- mark of PRSA membership (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001). BEPS and PRSA officials subsequently agreed that a new code of ethics—rather than simply a revision of the existing model—was needed to reflect the professional status and obligations of contemporary practitio- ners and to address the enforcement challenge.

Researching the Code

The code development process began with more research. Although members who had served on the Ethics Board for many years had some strong opinions regarding the type of code needed (i.e., one with less em- phasis on code enforcement and sanctions and more emphasis on inspira- tion and encouragement), they felt involving PRSA members in the pro- cess was important. According to Frause (personal communication, June 11, 2001),

Research confirmed what was intuitively known by BEPS’ members but not really known by the rest of PRSA leadership, staff and members. Research also helped legitimize the findings and build consensus for approval by the Assembly. It showed that BEPS had done its homework and that the recom- mendations were based on relevant information.

Early in the research process, Frause sent a memo to PRSA board mem- bers, chapter presidents, Assembly delegates, and section/district chairs requesting their participation in a national discussion about the PRSA code (ERC, 2000b). The correspondence posed questions directly related to the development of a new code, including code structure and format, as well as substantive issues the Ethics Board had encountered during years of code-related investigations.

114 From Enforcement to Education

The ERC (2000b) received 20 responses from PRSA leaders. Participants said that having a code was important for the profession and for the future of PRSA. They also supported a revised code, with most supporting en- forcement and suggesting that various degrees of punishment be used. Re- spondents also supported ethics education as an important reinforcement, noting that it was PRSA’s responsibility to educate, guide, and lead its members and nonmembers regarding ethical practices. Respondents said that PRSA members should be held responsible for the actions of non–PRSA members they supervise and should identify employers, cli- ents, and front groups.

Focus Group Findings

ERC representatives and PRSA Assembly delegates conducted focus groups at the October 1999 PRSA national conference. Approximately 240 PRSA members participated in 18 focus groups.

Focus group participants expressed strong support for revising the ex- isting code and for professional ethical practices, with many supporting the use of PRSA resources to review the code and increase the focus on eth- ics (ERC, 1999a). Education on ethics also was supported, but views dif- fered on the extent to which PRSA should commit resources for such ef- forts. Participants said that enforcement was desirable although it may not be practical. They also expressed some concern regarding the PRSA board’s authenticity in support of ethical issues.

… the most critical or central ethics-related issues in the public

relations industry involve truthfulness, the corruption of communication channels, and

competitive practices.

According to focus group participants, the most critical or central eth- ics-related issues in the public relations industry involve truthfulness, the corruption of communication channels, and competitive practices (ERC, 1999a). In addressing the ways in which dishonest business activities mani- festthemselvesinpublicrelations,participantscitedthefollowingconcerns:

Truthfulness in Business Activities

• “Spinning” a message in a manner that may distort the truth about an issue or product.

Fitzpatrick 115

• Clients who knowingly mischaracterize an issue or product to their public relations firms.

• Misrepresentation of a client. • Front groups that advocate the position of a particular organization

or issue without disclosing that they are doing so. • Billing a client as if work had been done by a senior staff person when

it was actually done by a junior staff person; padding of bills. • Conflicts of interest created by firms’ lack of disclosure regarding re-

lationships with client competitors or other conflicts.

Corruption of Communication Channels

• Paying for editorial coverage. • Sharing insider information. • Sharing confidential/proprietary information. • Advocating for a particular issue or product rather than dispensing

information. • Gift-giving or receiving in a way that creates undue influence. • Media practices that distort channels of communication.

Competitive Practices

• Competitive intelligence practices that border on espionage. • Intentionally damaging the reputation of a competitor or opposing

side. • Pressure from clients to bend rules, be unethical, or guarantee results. • Pressure from leadership to bend rules, be unethical, or guarantee

results. • Pressure from marketing to bend the truth, be unethical, or guarantee

the results.

In addressing the structure of a new code, focus group participants cited four features they found lacking in the existing code: clarity, simplicity, specificity, and teeth (ERC, 1999a). With regard to content, participants said the code should be “relevant” (p. 8). Commonly cited issues that should be addressed included the economics of ethics (i.e., the fact that tak- ing an ethical stand might mean losing a job); licensing or certifying public relations professionals; effective enforcement mechanisms; “globalism” (p. 8); Internet activities; disclosure and confidentiality; front groups; and dealings with the media.

Focus group participants indicated a range of ideas on how the Ethics Board should draft a new code. Some suggested that PRSA members should participate in the process; others cautioned against “writing by

116 From Enforcement to Education

committee” (ERC, 1999a, p. 8). With regard to code philosophy, most of the participants favored a positive approach focused on best practices rather than punishment. Commonly cited issues that should be addressed in- cluded whether members should sign a commitment on admission to PRSA, renewal of membership, or both; the role of judicial panels (PRSA bodies that decide cases involving alleged code violations); how to incor- porate ethics into the member accreditation process; and ways for PRSA to “brand” (p. 9) the code and make members, clients, and the public aware of its existence.

In its preliminary research, the ERC had found that although many PRSA members believed code enforcement would remain largely ineffec- tive without state licensing of practitioners, the enforcement “provisions were worth retaining, since eliminating them entirely would be a step in the wrong direction and would send the wrong signal to all public re- lations practitioners and others” (ERC, 1999b, p. 3). The focus groups seemed to support this finding, although participants were split in their views on whether enforcement was desirable, possible, or both (ERC, 1999a). Some thought a code “with teeth” (ERC, 1999a, p. 9) was the key to increased professional standing; others believed that even if enforcement were desirable it probably was not possible.

The ERC (1999a) found “no consensus and some disagreement” (p. 10) regarding the resources that PRSA should devote to ethics education and training. But “the simplicity of some [participants’] suggestions—men- tioning ethics in standard communications—is a real indication that PRSA is in the beginning stages of integrating ethics into its organizational fab- ric” (p. 10). Participants’ recommendations included ethics seminars and classes, affiliations with other organizations, the development of ethics re- sources (e.g., speaker’s bureau and case studies, code compliance mecha- nisms, external promotion of PRSA values, integration of ethics into PRSA materials, and encouragement for members to include the code in routine practices, such as including it as part of proposals and contracts).

Survey Results

Using data gathered from the focus groups and preliminary research, the ERC developed and administered a survey of PRSA members in Janu- ary 2000. The objectives were to gain additional insight into members’ views on PRSA’s mission, the organization’s leadership, the current code, and the ethical climate in their workplace (ERC, 2000a). Initial and fol- low-up mailings of a 79-item questionnaire were sent to PRSA’s 20,266 members. A total of 2,099 responses were received, for a response rate of 10.4%.

Fitzpatrick 117

Key findings related to code development include the following (ERC, 2000a):

PRSA and Ethical Standards

• A sizable majority (92%) strongly agreed that ethics is a key part of PRSA’s mission.

• Most (86%) agreed that PRSA’s commitment to the highest ethical standards adds value to PRSA membership.

• Most agreed that PRSA’ has a responsibility to set (87%), develop (92%), and uphold (92%) professional standards.

• Ninety-one percent believe that members’ commitment to a code of ethics can help brand PRSA as a leader in ethical conduct.

• Only half (50%) believe that the professional and ethical standards of PRSA are higher than the standards of the industry as a whole.

• Fewer than half (46%) said they would turn to PRSA for guidance if faced with unethical or disturbing situations in the workplace.

Enforcement and Education

• Ninety percent agreed that PRSA should deny or revoke membership for failure to meet code standards.

• Ninety-two percent believe that a formal mechanism should be in place to resolve allegations of ethical misconduct.

• Eighty-five percent believe that PRSA should offer some form of edu- cation, counseling, or mediation to help members meet code stan- dards, although only 57% said they would participate in PRSA ethics and professional standards training.

• Seventy-one percent believe that PRSA should invest financial re- sources in establishing a code of ethics, and 66% said PRSA should spend money to apply a code.

PRSA Code of Professional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations

• Seventy-two percent said they had read the existing code within the past 2 years; academics and accreditation candidates were most likely to have read it.

• Most members strongly agreed (91% or higher) with most of the state- ments in the current code, although some ambivalence, uncertainty, or both were noted with respect to provisions related to appearing as a witness in a code-related hearing; identifying publicly the name of a client or employer; not accepting fees, commissions, and gifts from

118 From Enforcement to Education

nonclients for client-related work; severing relations with organiza- tions or individuals requiring conduct contrary to the code; reporting unethical, illegal, or unfair practices; and conducting life in accord with the public interest.

When asked to share perceptions about the ethical climates in which they work, half of the members surveyed said they “feel an extraordinary amount of pressure to compromise their [ethical] standards” (ERC, 2000a, p. 23). Fifty percent said that they felt pressure from within their own orga- nizations, and 40% reported feeling pressure from clients. About one third (34%) reported observing misconduct, and more than half (53%) of those respondents said they reported observed misconduct.

… half of the members surveyed said they “feel an extraordinary

amount of pressure to compromise their [ethical]

standards.”

Of considerable importance to BEPS throughout the research process were findings related to PRSA leaders’ and members’ attitudes regarding code enforcement and ethics education. Thus, in addition to the prelimi- nary and formal research, the ERC posed three questions to PRSA Assem- bly delegates (who represent and vote in Assembly proceedings on behalf of PRSA chapter members). The survey questions and responses, as re- ported by the ERC (2000a, p. 27), follow:

1. “Should PRSA’s Code of Professional Standards be coupled with a provision for strong enforcement or voluntary compliance?” Responses: evenly divided.

2. “Do you believe [PRSA] should invest in an ethics education pro- gram for our members and our external audiences, our clients and our em- ployers? For example, do you believe [PRSA] should invest in an ethics ed- ucation program for members and external audiences?” Responses: yes.

3. “Ethical practice is our most powerful brand difference as a society. Do youseeethicsasabranddifferentiatorforPRSA?”Responses:evenlydivided.

Writing the Code

Unless otherwise noted, this section reports the observations of Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, who participated in the development of the new code. Other

Fitzpatrick 119

members of the 2000 PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards were David M. Bicofsky, Roger D. Buehrer, Linda Welter Cohen, James Frankowiak, Robert D. Frause (Chair), Jeffrey P. Julin, James E. Lukaszew- ski, and James W. Wyckoff.

When the research phase concluded, the ERC reiterated its earlier rec- ommendation for PRSA to rewrite its code of ethics and develop the infra- structure and resources needed to support ongoing efforts related to ethics (ERC, 2000b). According to the ERC, a critical part of the package would be a communications and training strategy, as well as practical materials, to educate PRSA members and potential members about ethics matters. The ERC also stressed that PRSA leaders would have to support any new code both philosophically and financially.

The ERC’s recommendations provided the basis for the code-drafting process to begin and proved valuable in developing the format of the new code:

The revised code should have a strong aspirational framework that uses the PRSA mission as its foundation … [and] include a concise set of core profes- sional principles that are aspirational in nature, references to detailed code provisions, and a clear statement on enforcement. The core principles in the revised code must clearly articulate those aspects of ethical conduct that are critical in public relations; and their relevance to members must be demon- strated. (ERC, 2000a, p. 29)

Body of Professionals

In anticipation of their first drafting session, BEPS members reviewed the research reports, as well as various codes of ethics and literature perti- nent to the philosophical and practical aspects of code development. They joined ERC representatives in Washington, D.C., in April 1999 to begin a process that would take months to complete. The code drafters were guided by the same view of public relations that influenced the develop- ment of PRSA’s early codes: “a profession with standards of practice” (see Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 91).

At the same time, a significant difference can be noted in the historical and contemporary approaches to code development. Although they re- ferred to public relations as a “profession,” the drafters of PRSA’s earlier standards viewed the code as a vehicle to help practitioners achieve pro- fessional standing (see Fitzpatrick, 2002). The 2000 drafters assumed that PRSA members had professional status.

This distinction became clear as the group addressed a critical first ques- tion posed by the ERC: Was PRSA a “professional body” or a “body of pro- fessionals?” ERC representatives had counseled earlier that although pub-

120 From Enforcement to Education

lic relations practitioners are not “professionals” per se because of the lack of common learning and organizational structures, such deficiencies did not necessarily defeat the practice as a profession.

From an ethical perspective, what defines a profession is not exclusively why people in the field act but also how they act. To be in a profession, or to be a professional, means both exercising technical skills (how one acts), which public relations practitioners certainly have, and serving society (why one acts). … In a word, a professional must be pro-social. (ERC, 1999b, p. 6)

In fact, the question proved an easy one for BEPS members. Few debated that PRSA represented a “body of professionals” and that the new code should serve as a guide for the conduct of individual PRSA members. The group also agreed that the code should be based on ideals of professional ethics and responsibility. Thus, an important step was identifying the pro- fessionalvaluesthatshouldguidecontemporarypublicrelationspractice.

Articulating Values

A more challenging task was deciding what values should be included in the code. The drafters began by listing values important to all profes- sionals and then adding those specific to public relations. As the list grew, so too did the difficulty in choosing among them.

Mindful that PRSA members wanted a clear and concise code and that fewer core values most likely would produce a more powerful document, the drafters narrowed the list. After much discussion and debate, they set- tled on six core values: advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loy- alty, and fairness. As the code states, BEPS members believed that these values would set the industry standard for the professional practice of public relations. “These values are the fundamental beliefs that guide our behaviors and decision-making process” (PRSA, 2000a).

Honesty and fairness were viewed as ideals that reflect not only tradi- tional public relations values but also the ethical counsel long provided by practitioners to clients and employers. Their inclusion in the code as core values reflects BEPS’ belief in the ethical practitioner’s respect for human rights and commitment to informed decision making in a democratic society.

The selection of advocacy and loyalty as core values both acknowledges and emphasizes the role of public relations professionals as representa- tives of special interests in the “marketplace of ideas.” The balancing of private and public concerns—an issue that code drafters paid a great deal of attention to—was addressed semantically with the phrase “responsible advocacy” (PRSA, 2000a). The belief that public relations professionals

Fitzpatrick 121

best serve the public interest—as do other professionals—by responsibly serving their clients’ and employers’ interests is reflected in the statement, “We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent” (PRSA, 2000a).

This provision also addresses the historical debate about how public rela- tions practitioners should weigh the sometimes competing interests of clients and employers and those affected by public relations decisions. The new code’s indication that loyalty to client or employer is paramount is a signifi- cant step in clarifying the professional role of public relations practitioners.

The new code’s indication that loyalty to client or employer is paramount is a significant step

in clarifying the professional role of public relations practitioners.

The value of “independence” also reflects the professional stature of public relations by emphasizing the obligation of public relations profes- sionals to provide sound, objective counsel unbiased by personal or other special interests. The term objective suggests that a public relations profes- sional—similar to other professionals—should offer expert advice free of outside influences and in the best interest of the client or employer.

Finally, “expertise”—noted by at least one BEPS member as being more of a characteristic of a profession than a value per se—stresses the impor- tance of professional competence. Certainly, special expertise is the hall- mark of any profession, and it was deemed of such significance in this field to warrant special “core value” status.

Code Provisions

BEPS members believed that the professional values should be sup- ported by principles designed “to affirmatively illustrate to practitioners what is expected of them as they practice the profession” (PRSA, 2000c, p. 26.) In this regard, the Ethics Board attempted to go beyond the behavioral guidelines common to many codes and address “why” one should act in specific ways. Such an approach, BEPS hoped, would provide greater di- rection for members in their daily decision-making processes. As a result, the new code’s provisions address six important practice concepts:

• Free flow of information. • Competition.

122 From Enforcement to Education

• Disclosure of information. • Safeguarding confidences. • Conflicts of interest. • Enhancing the profession.

Each provision includes a “core principle” that outlines the reasons for and the benefits of ethical practices in public relations. The provisions also address the more substantive issues raised through the ERC research and the Ethics Board’s 50 years of experience in investigating potential miscon- duct. Key elements of the former PRSA codes were incorporated primarily in the guidelines sections, which outline appropriate professional behav- ior. The guidelines, presented as affirmative, positive action statements, re- flect the drafters’ efforts to make the code aspirational. Explanatory state- ments about the “intent” of each provision, along with the careful use of the term shall (rather than shall not), also helped ensure a positive tone.

Finally, examples of “improper conduct” are provided as practical illus- trations of behaviors that would violate each of the principles. The exam- ples, particularly, were intended to expand over time, becoming “a reposi- tory for case examples of right and wrong behaviors to better and more promptly allow practitioners to determine for themselves appropriate be- havior” (PRSA, 2000c, p. 26).

Code Enforcement

Perhaps the most compelling moment in BEPS deliberations was the de- cision on code enforcement. Research clearly showed that PRSA members and leaders supported enforcement. Yet, despite PRSA’s best efforts to de- vise a workable code enforcement scheme, the existing process simply was not working (Fitzpatrick, 2002). In the 50 years in which the somewhat elaborate PRSA judicial system had been in effect, only 11 of 231 cases in- vestigated had resulted in formal sanctions against members for unethical behavior. Although these statistics belie the actual work of the Ethics Board, they do reflect significant problems associated with enforcement under the former codes.

Of no small consequence was PRSA members’ reluctance to get in- volved in enforcement proceedings (Fitzpatrick, 2002). Although required under PRSA bylaws both to report violations of fellow members and to ap- pear as witnesses in code hearings, many members refused to participate. Additionally, many PRSA members accused of violations either resigned their membership in PRSA, thereby precluding further action by BEPS, or refused—often through their attorneys—to take part in the grievance pro- cess. Without legal subpoena power to require compliance with requests for information, the Ethics Board effectively was forced to close cases with-

Fitzpatrick 123

out full investigations. According to BEPS legal counsel, the potential for defamation lawsuits related to BEPS proceedings also was a concern (J. R. Cohen, personal communication, July 3, 2001).

Notwithstanding this situation, even some BEPS members were not convinced that eliminating code enforcement was a good idea. Of consid- erable concern was the potential for others to interpret a step away from enforcement as an endorsement of unethical behavior or for PRSA mem- bers to interpret a lack of enforcement as a lack of commitment to ethics by PRSA leaders.

The most significant challenge faced during code development … was “overcoming the natural desire to develop a code that

could be enforced.”

The debate on enforcement initially was framed around the issue of whether the new code should be a punitive one with enforcement provi- sions, a voluntary code designed to inspire ethical conduct, or one that fell somewhere between. Frause, who believed that code enforcement is im- possible “without becoming a licensed profession,” was a strong propo- nent of an aspirational and educational code. Yet he recognized the desire for accountability. The most significant challenge faced during code devel- opment, he later recalled, was “overcoming the natural desire to develop a code that could be enforced” (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001).

ERC representatives facilitated the discussion with the earlier observa- tion that, given the difficulties inherent in the current system, “limiting re- vocation of membership to cases where legal action has already taken place would be one very conservative way of handling the problem” (ERC, 1999a, p. 10). BEPS ultimately chose this route, placing emphasis on aspira- tional rather than punitive elements in the new code. The decision was based on several factors, including the lack of financial and legal resources needed to administer a formal process of enforcement effectively, as well as the belief that enforcement simply was not feasible without the legal au- thority needed to investigate fully cases of alleged misconduct.

Additionally, a review of codes of ethics adopted by nonprofit institu- tions and associations had produced no examples of successful enforce- ment mechanisms (PRSA, 2000c). In fact, it was noted that nonprofit or vol- unteer organizations seeking a model of an enforceable code most likely

124 From Enforcement to Education

would look to PRSA because it had one of the few codes that included a formal judicial process for punishing violators.

By targeting resources on education rather than punishment, BEPS hoped to raise public relations professionals’ awareness of ethical stan- dards and inspire them to make ethical choices. Ultimately, personal ac- countability was stressed through a pledge that all PRSA members—and those seeking to become members—must sign as a reflection of their com- mitment to the values and principles embraced by the 2000 code. The pledge states that “there is a consequence for misconduct, up to and in- cluding membership revocation” (PRSA, 2000a). Such actions are limited to “those who have been or are sanctioned by a government agency or con- victed in a court of law of an action that is in violation of this Code” (PRSA, 2000a).

PRSA Approval of the New Code

Numerous drafts of the new code were discussed, debated, and rewrit- ten in the months following the Washington meeting. In mid-2000, BEPS sent the “final” draft out for review to selected and volunteer academics and professionals in the field. Despite some concern regarding the absence of enforcement, the new code received high marks. The movement from “prohibitions” to “ideals” particularly was heralded. In the words of one draft code reviewer, “I think this positive approach to values, principles and conduct will increase the likelihood of compliance” (R. D. Frause, per- sonal communication, July 30, 2001). Another said, “I believe the new structure of the code in terms of values, provisions and pledge, is meaning- ful, understandable, and helpful in furthering ethical behavior in our pro- fession” (R. D. Frause, personal communication, July 30, 2001).

BEPS addressed the issues raised by draft reviewers and finalized the document. The next-to-last step in the process was the review and ap- proval of the new code by the PRSA Board of Directors. With that done, BEPS requested that its proposal for a new code of ethics be placed on the agenda for the 2000 PRSA Assembly meeting. Prior to the event, the 225 Assembly delegates (who vote on behalf of chapters represented) received information about the code, along with an invitation to attend telecon- ferences on the subject. PRSA district chairs, chapter presidents, section chairs, and members of the College of Fellows also received information packets and invitations to participate in public forums to discuss the code proposal.

When it was formally presented on October 21, 2000, after some discus- sion, the proposal received resounding approval from Assembly members. The new code became effective that day, along with changes in PRSA’s by- laws, which created a new role for the Ethics Board (PRSA, 2000b). Under

Fitzpatrick 125

the new system, the primary duty of BEPS is “to develop and implement educational programs regarding the Society’s code of ethics for members and the public at large” (PRSA, 2000b, p. 6). BEPS also serves in an advi- sory role to the PRSA Board of Directors on ethics-related matters and “at the discretion and direction of the PRSA Board of Directors, as counsel to the Board” on actions related to the new code (PRSA, 2000b, p. 6).

Ethics Education

PRSA’s long-term plan for its ethics education program includes estab- lishing a staff ethics officer, volunteer chapter ethics officers and district ethics advisors; ethics programming at regional and national conferences; providing additional online ethics resources; integrating ethics-related topics in PRSA materials; sponsoring joint ethics programs with various trade groups; recognizing members’ outstanding ethical practices; institut- ing a new member ethics orientation; establishing an ethics hot line; spon- soring Socratic dialogues, and increasing the number of forums for greater communication about ethics (PRSA, 2000c).

In the year following the code’s adoption, some progress was made in weaving ethics more tightly into the fabric of PRSA and in building an in- ternal infrastructure to support ethics initiatives. Most chapters estab- lished chapter ethics officer positions to aid chapter leaders in promoting ethics at the local level. PRSA declared February 2002 as the first annual “ethics month,” during which PRSA publications featured issues related to ethics and PRSA chapters sponsored ethics programming. BEPS members discussed the establishment of a PRSA ethics advisory committee to issue formal opinions on matters related to ethics. And PRSAincorporated a link in its Web site to address members’ questions and concerns about ethics is- sues generally and the PRSA Member Code of Ethics 2000 specifically. (See www.prsa.org.)

The Future

The 20,000 or so members of PRSA who are bound by the 2000 code rep- resent only about one tenth of the total number of public relations practi- tioners in the United States. Yet, these new professional standards will have implications for practitioners in the industry as a whole, regardless of their membership status. As the leading association in the field, PRSA in many respects sets the ethical standard for the profession. As PRSA and its members gain wider recognition so, too, will the expectations for ethical performance be raised.

Additionally, questions related to professional malpractice most likely will be determined on the basis of PRSA’s code of conduct. Because the

126 From Enforcement to Education

standards generally applied by the courts in such cases are based on indus- try norms, PRSA’s guidelines most likely will provide the criteria by which such actions will be judged.

“A professional code is a living thing which grows and improves

with the passage of time.”

In some respects, the 2000 code accomplishes a goal set by PRSA in 1993 as part of its long-range strategic plan, called “Blueprint 2000.” The plan called for PRSA to be, by the year 2000, the “standard-bearer for ethical practice” in the industry and recognized as “the standard-setter for the profession worldwide” (Warner, 2000, p. 15).

Of course, this will not be PRSA’s last code of ethics. As the profession and its practices evolve so, too, should the prevailing industry standards. In fact, as the drafters of the 2000 code completed their task, they recalled the wisdom of their early counterparts: “A professional code is a living thing which grows and improves with the passage of time” (PRSA, 1950, p. 8.)

References

Ethics Resource Center. (1999a). Public Relations Society of America focus group report. Washington, DC: Author.

Ethics Resource Center. (1999b). Public Relations Society of America summary report. Washington, DC: Author.

Ethics Resource Center. (2000a). Executive summary of research on ethics and profes- sional standards for public relations. Washington, DC: Author.

Ethics Resource Center. (2000b.) Public Relations Society of America survey report. Washington, DC: Author.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2002). Evolving standards in public relations: A historical exami- nation of PRSA’s standards of practice. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17, 89–110.

Public Relations Society of America. (1950). Public Relations Society of America regis- ter. New York: Author.

Public Relations Society of America. (2000a). Public Relations Society of America mem- ber code of ethics 2000. New York: Author.

Public Relations Society of America. (2000b). Public Relations Society of America re- vised bylaws. New York: Author.

Public Relations Society of America. (2000c). Questions and answers about PRSA’s new code of ethics: Briefing kit: Revising the code of ethics. New York: Author.

Warner, H. W. (2000, January). Blueprint 2000 aims to establish public relations as a strategic management tool. Public Relations Journal, pp. 15–17.

Fitzpatrick 127

APPENDIX Member Code of Ethics 2000

Approved by the PRSA Assembly October 2000

The PRSA Assembly adopted this Code of Ethics in 2000. It replaces the Code of Professional Standards (previously referred to as the Code of Eth- ics) that was last revised in 1988.

Preamble

Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics 2000

• Professional Values • Principles of Conduct • Commitment and Compliance

This Code applies to PRSA members. The Code is designed to be a use- ful guide for PRSA members as they carry out their ethical responsibilities. This document is designed to anticipate and accommodate, by precedent, ethical challenges that may arise. The scenarios outlined in the Code provi- sion are actual examples of misconduct. More will be added as experience with the Code occurs.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is committed to ethical practices. The level of public trust PRSAmembers seek, as we serve the pub- lic good, means we have taken on a special obligation to operate ethically.

The value of member reputation depends upon the ethical conduct of everyone affiliated with the Public Relations Society of America. Each of us sets an example for each other—as well as other professionals—by our pursuit of excellence with powerful standards of performance, profession- alism, and ethical conduct.

Emphasis on enforcement of the Code has been eliminated. But, the PRSA Board of Directors retains the right to bar from membership or expel from the Societyanyindividualwhohasbeenorissanctionedbyagovernmentagency or convicted in a court of law of an action that is in violation of this Code.

Ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member. We view the Member Code of Ethics as a model for other professions, organi- zations, and professionals.

PRSA Member Statement of Professional Values

This statement presents the core values of PRSA members and, more broadly, of the public relations profession. These values provide the founda- tion for the Member Code of Ethics and set the industry standard for the pro-

128 From Enforcement to Education

fessional practice of public relations. These values are the fundamental be- liefs that guide our behaviors and decision-making process. We believe our professional values are vital to the integrity of the profession as a whole.

Advocacy

• We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent.

• We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.

Honesty

• We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advanc- ing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.

Expertise

• Weacquireandresponsiblyusespecializedknowledgeandexperience. • We advance the profession through continued professional develop-

ment, research, and education. • We build mutual understanding, credibility, and relationships among

a wide array of institutions and audiences.

Independence

• We provide objective counsel to those we represent. • We are accountable for our actions.

Loyalty

• We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest.

Fairness

• We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media, and the general public.

• We respect all opinions and support the right of free expression.

Fitzpatrick 129

PRSA Code Provisions Free Flow of Information

Core Principle

Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful infor- mation is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to in- formed decision making in a democratic society.

Intent

• To maintain the integrity of relationships with the media, govern- ment officials, and the public.

• To aid informed decision making.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Preserve the integrity of the process of communication. • Be honest and accurate in all communications. • Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the

practitioner is responsible. • Preserve the free flow of unprejudiced information when giving or re-

ceiving gifts by ensuring that gifts are nominal, legal, and infrequent.

Examples of Improper Conduct Under This Provision:

• A member representing a ski manufacturer gives a pair of expensive racing skis to a sports magazine columnist to influence the columnist to write favorable articles about the product.

• A member entertains a government official beyond legal limits and/ or in violation of government reporting requirements.

Competition

Core Principle

Promoting healthy and fair competition among professionals preserves an ethical climate while fostering a robust business environment.

130 From Enforcement to Education

Intent

• To promote respect and fair competition among public relations pro- fessionals.

• To serve the public interest by providing the widest choice of practi- tioner options.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Follow ethical hiring practices designed to respect free and open com- petition without deliberately undermining a competitor.

• Preserve intellectual property rights in the marketplace.

Examples of Improper Conduct Under This Provision:

• A member employed by a “client organization” shares helpful infor- mation with a counseling firm that is competing with others for the organization’s business.

• Amember spreads malicious and unfounded rumors about a compet- itor in order to alienate the competitor’s clients and employees in a ploy to recruit people and business.

Disclosure of Information

Core Principle

Open communication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society.

Intent

• To build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Be honest and accurate in all communications.

Fitzpatrick 131

• Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the member is responsible.

• Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.

• Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented. • Disclose financial interest (such as stock ownership) in a client’s

organization. • Avoid deceptive practices.

Examples of Improper Conduct Under This Provision:

• Front groups: A member implements “grass roots” campaigns or let- ter-writing campaigns to legislators on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.

• Lying by omission: A practitioner for a corporation knowingly fails to release financial information, giving a misleading impression of the corporation’s performance.

• A member discovers inaccurate information disseminated via a Web site or media kit and does not correct the information.

• A member deceives the public by employing people to pose as volun- teers to speak at public hearings and participate in “grass roots” campaigns.

Safeguarding Confidences

Core Principle

Client trust requires appropriate protection of confidential and private information.

Intent

• To protect the privacy rights of clients, organizations, and individuals by safeguarding confidential information.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Safeguard the confidences and privacy rights of present, former, and prospective clients and employees.

132 From Enforcement to Education

• Protect privileged, confidential, or insider information gained from a client or organization.

• Immediately advise an appropriate authority if a member discovers that confidential information is being divulged by an employee of a client company or organization.

Examples of Improper Conduct Under This Provision:

• Amemberchanges jobs, takesconfidential information,andusesthat in- formationinthenewpositiontothedetrimentoftheformeremployer.

• A member intentionally leaks proprietary information to the detri- ment of some other party.

Conflicts of Interest

Core Principle

Avoiding real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest builds the trust of clients, employers, and the publics.

Intent

• To earn trust and mutual respect with clients or employers. • To build trust with the public by avoiding or ending situations that

put one’s personal or professional interests in conflict with society’s interests.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Act in the best interests of the client or employer, even subordinating the member’s personal interests.

• Avoid actions and circumstances that may appear to compromise good business judgment or create a conflict between personal and professional interests.

• Disclose promptly any existing or potential conflict of interest to af- fected clients or organizations.

• Encourage clients and customers to determine if a conflict exists after notifying all affected parties.

Fitzpatrick 133

Examples of Improper Conduct Under This Provision

• The member fails to disclose that he or she has a strong financial inter- est in a client’s chief competitor.

• The member represents a “competitor company” or a “conflicting in- terest” without informing a prospective client.

Enhancing the Profession

Core Principle

Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.

Intent

• To build respect and credibility with the public for the profession of public relations.

• To improve, adapt, and expand professional practices.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Acknowledge that there is an obligation to protect and enhance the profession.

• Keep informed and educated about practices in the profession to en- sure ethical conduct.

• Actively pursue personal professional development. • Decline representation of clients or organizations that urge or require

actions contrary to this Code. • Accurately define what public relations activities can accomplish. • Counsel subordinates in proper ethical decision making. • Require that subordinates adhere to the ethical requirements of the

Code. • Report ethical violations, whether committed by PRSA members or

not, to the appropriate authority.

134 From Enforcement to Education

Examples of Improper Conduct Under This Provision:

• A PRSA member declares publicly that a product the client sells is safe, without disclosing evidence to the contrary.

• A member initially assigns some questionable client work to a nonmember practitioner to avoid the ethical obligation of PRSA membership.

PRSA Member Code of Ethics Pledge

I pledge: To conduct myself professionally, with truth, accuracy, fairness, and re-

sponsibility to the public; To improve my individual competence and ad- vance the knowledge and proficiency of the profession through continuing research and education; And to adhere to the articles of the Member Code of Ethics 2000 for the practice of public relations as adopted by the govern- ing Assembly of the Public Relations Society of America.

I understand and accept that there is a consequence for misconduct, up to and including membership revocation.

And, I understand that those who have been or are sanctioned by a gov- ernment agency or convicted in a court of law of an action that is in viola- tion of this Code may be barred from membership or expelled from the Society.

Signature:_______________________________________

Date: ___________________________________________

Fitzpatrick 135