!

!

MINUTES

CLOSING BUSINESS SESSION OF THE

SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS

SEPT. 20, 2016

NEW ORLEANS, LA.

CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOME

government transparency and the public information officer issue; Getting a letter to the editor

published in the New York Times saying journalism groups will continue the fight for

government transparency; Thinking more strategically about SPJ membership; and finally,

looking at board governance.

HOW SPJ HELPS – MARK THOMASON

Fletcher introduced Mark Thomason, publisher of the Fannin Focus, a weekly newspaper in Blue

Ridge, Georgia, who was arrested on felony charges stemming from his efforts to get

information about a judge’s use of county money to pay legal fees of a contract court reporter

who had sued him. Thomason gave a brief speech about what happened and how SPJ supported

Fletcher said this was the highest turnout for elections with 16 percent of the members voting

(1,016 voters).

Results for election of members of the national board of directors are:

• President: Lynn Walsh.

• President-Elect: Rebecca Baker with 926 votes.

• Secretary-Treasurer: Alex Tarquinio with 919 votes.

• Director At Large – Rachel Wedding McClelland with 444 votes. Jason Parsley had 271

!

!

Rosenhammer received 84 votes. That makes Keem Muhammad and Maggie Gottlieb the

two Student Representatives.

Fletcher also reported the Regional Director results. All position were uncontested:

Region 1: Jane Primerano (142 votes)

Region 4: Patti Gallagher Newberry (77)

CONVENTION BYLAWS INFORMATION

Fletcher addressed proposed bylaw amendments. See Appendix A for bylaws proposals:

Article Four – The proposed change redefines our current Associate category by making the

category available to anyone and removing a requirement that Associates be sponsored by

current members of the Society. The changes reflect a desire to build a stronger base of people

who support a free press and the public’s right to know.

The proposed amendment, recommended by the board, for a revamped Associate category,

Motion to accept change to Article Four was made by Andy Schotz, DC Pro, and seconded by

Amanda Ventura, Sun Valley Chapter.

In discussion, Lauren Bartlett voiced concern about erosion of membership and said she wants to

amend the proposal to remove sponsorship, but keep the rest of the requirements for an associate.

Second by Kathy Burns, DC Pro.

The proposed amendment was to return the following original language from the bylaws:

— Persons not eligible for membership in the Society who support the goals of the organization.

Colin DeVries, New York Pro, offered a friendly amendment to preserve the language that

supporters are not eligible for membership. Bartlett accepted friendly amendment, Burns

accepted.

Koretzky, Region 3 director, said he was confused between the original language and new

language. Bartlett explained that the LA Pro Chapter believes anyone who is eligible to be a

!

!

original language proposed by Lynn Walsh was studied and it was determined that we wouldn’t

lose a lot of members to the $20 supporter because you get no perks at that level. We have to

support more good journalism and be able to say we support 15,000 journalists and their

supporters. The past six years we’ve lost 1/3 of our membership and if you think we can make

small changes and that will make our membership grow, that’s not going to happen. DeVries

said there is nothing in the bylaws that would limit them from networking, training, etc., -- the

same things pro members have access to. He does not believe letting journalists join for $20 is

$94. Koretzky said $20 supporters would not be able to vote, he would welcome PR people. He

added the average member doesn’t care about voting. They want to be involved with a group of

colleagues. Maureen Nevin Duffy, New Jersey Pro, said she is against the proposed amendment

and thinks non-journalists should be charged a larger fee than journalists. Schotz said he thinks

what the board wants to do and what Bartlett wants to do are basically the same thing – trying to

bring in members/supporters who are new, not necessarily working journalists, but support SPJ’s

mission. Bartlett clarified that her objection is to making it possible for journalists to becomes

supporters rather than full members.

A voice vote on the amendment was taken first. It was decided to do a vote count. For

ARTICLE FOUR

Membership

Section One. There shall be five categories of membership: Professional and Retired

Professional (including Household), Institutional (including Collegiate Institutional), Student,

Post Graduate, and Fellow. A separate category exists for affiliates SUPPORTERS of the

Society, known as Associates.

Associate

Section Nine. Associates shall not vote, hold national or chapter office, be delegates to the

national convention, nor be counted in determining the voting strength of a chapter as defined

under Article Ten, Section Three.

Associates may be:

!

!

— Persons not eligible for membership in the Society who support the goals of the organization.

— High school students who have a demonstrated interest in journalism or whose serious

interests or career plans are within the scope of the Society as defined in Article One, Section

Two.

— A person wishing to affiliate with the Society must be sponsored by a current member in good

standing.

chapters. A task force worked to create a solution that would provide representation for

everyone, including those not affiliated with chapters.

b. The proposed amendment would create a system of regional delegates with votes

assigned as they are to chapters. Regional delegates would be elected by unaffiliated

members in their respective regions and represent those members on the convention

floor.

Motion to approve amendment was made by Alex Tarquinio. Seconded by Andy Schotz.

Kathy Burns, DC Pro, said she is against this because there are 400 national members in DC and

run or how unaffiliated members are treated, beyond giving them delegate status.

Jodi Gil, Connecticut Pro, said she is against this but with mixed feelings. She supports all

members having a vote. She is concerned it could hurt local chapters because people might be

less likely to join chapters. Bartlett, who is in support of this proposal, said surveys show that

most people don’t belong to a chapter because there isn’t one near them. This proposal is in no

way meant to detract from chapters. Koretzky said he doesn’t feel that members fleeing chapters

is a valid reason not to pass this amendment. It is a valid reason to do better in our chapters, he

said.

Mac McKerral said there are a lot of reasons SPJ has seen a decline in members, but one reason

is that there are close to 60 journalism organizations in this country. Anything SPJ can do to

open its doors to anyone who supports its mission is something we should do.

Ben Meyerson, Chicago Headline Club, supports the amendment and said it is a small thing to

give to members. Can’t image it would affect membership on a large scale.

!

!

No changes to the amendments were made.

Fletcher called for a voice vote and the amendments passed.

CONVENTION RESOLUTIONS INFORMATION

Fletcher announced the next order of business: Consideration of the Resolutions Committee

Haley Harding, Ohio University, made a motion to remove No. 5 from the block. Tim Eigo,

Valley of the Sun, seconded. It was pointed out that No. 6 mentions Trump by name and deals

with access issues of his campaign. Albarado said that did not come up in committee, and that

mentioning by name was an oversight. \

Resolutions nos. 1,5,6,7 pulled from block.

Upon proper motion and second, delegates approved all resolutions except Nos. 1,5,6,7.

Brandon Ballenger said the last clause in Resolution 12 should say “filed” instead of “files.”

journalism,” they want to be practicing journalists. She said it would be more difficult to pitch to

parents and students a membership in SPJ if the name was changed. She is against this

resolution.

Irwin Gratz said a key procedural point is that the text of any bylaws change would have to be

submitted to chapters 60 days before the convention can vote. The resolution can not take effect

today. Passage would instruct bylaws committee to draft the language, make sure it is submitted

to chapters late next summer, and the bylaws change would go to the board next year. If passed

here, it would only be an expression of the will of the delegates at convention.

Lauren Bartlett, LA Pro, spoke against the resolution, saying a name change is not necessary.

Mac McKerral spoke in favor, saying there are a lot of moving parts happening with bylaws

changes, trying to grow and strengthen members, etc. They are not independent of one another

and changing the name might send a message that people respond to.

!

!

Danielle McLean, New England Pro Chapter, said she would want to know the financials of a

name change and rebranding ourselves. What would this affect and what kind of money would it

take for new branding. Koretzky responded that when RTDNA changed its name, it didn’t cost

much at all. It would involve changing the website, we could use things like the current

stationery until its gone. McLean said there is a lot of branding out there among chapters, etc.,

and she would hope we would do our due diligence to get a cost estimate.

changing now, with the membership initiatives, etc., so he thinks a name change now makes

sense. We are no longer an organization that is just journalists, he said. I agree with this idea this

time because it is coming second instead of first, as in the past.

David Levitt, New Jersey Pro, said this comes up year and year and over the past 40 years, there

has been a 20 percent reduction in journalists. Without SPJ, there is no organization for

professional journalists. He thinks we should own who we are, and whether there are 6,000 or

60,000 journalists, we should be their society.

Kathryn Foxhall, DC Pro, said this will become a vehicle that will attract people who are not

concept. When you change organizations’ names, you change the culture. This would do very

little to improve membership. We should think long and hard about changing the name of an

organization with a more than 100-year reputation.

Maggie Gottlieb, University of Maryland student chapter, said it would change the dynamics of

the organization. She recommends waiting to see how the inclusion of supporters impacts SPJ

before changing the name.

Liz Enochs, Northern California Pro, thinks adding the supporter category is a great move in

being more relevant and having a broader strategy. If we really want to consider rebranding, let’s

consider rebranding. Changing two letters doesn’t do anything. Who are we? Who do we want to

serve? Those are the types of questions we need to be addressing.

Koretzky said the resolution should come back as often as someone wants it to come back. Since

it was first submitted three years ago, the debates keep getting longer and that’s a good thing, he

said. You don’t have to be a journalist to learn journalism values. Journalism is a core function in

!

!

SPJ’s name has changed twice in the past 40 years. The difference is, we don’t have the luxury

of being the only journalism organization anymore. With our membership number at 6700, we

can do better at teaching people about journalism and that’s why this proposal is here now, and

why I hope it comes back next year if it does fail. If it comes back up next year and fails, he said

he will stop bringing it up.

Michael Fitzgerald said he came prepared to vote against this resolution, but when he talks to

Mike Farrell “called the question” to end debate. Liz Enochs of California Pro seconded.

Irwin Gratz reiterated that a yes vote would set in motion the process to bring necessary bylaws

language to next year’s business meeting. The board would have to be ordered to take a vote and

bylaws committee draft language that would be presented and voted on by the delegates next

year. A yes vote today does not guarantee the name will change. It DOES guarantee a vote will

be made next year, or it can be tabled next year.

Vote was taken. In favor – 44. Opposed – 57. Resolution did not pass.

Alisen Redmond Kennesaw State University spoke against motion – trigger warnings, are

transparency about what content is. Just so students are prepared for the content they’re seeing

Haley Harding, Ohio State University was also opposed. Trigger warnings are good because

everyone then knows what’s coming, it is ethically correct to have trigger warnings. It’s only a

warning. I fight for free speech also, but I also support my friends who might find certain content

disturbing or traumatic.

Tim Eigo, Valley of the Sun Pro, said this resolution is a hammer in search of a nail. Fifty

percent of professors warn students about certain content, but they don’t use the trigger warning

term. We should not be a part of a national trend, even unintentionally.

Mac McKerral spoke in favor, saying the resolution is a produce of the education committee

work. We knew going in what the pros and cons would be and we assure everyone the

committee’s discussion was not dismissive of anyone who has suffered any kind of trauma. We

point back to the key word, “mandatory.” Rules and regulations are growing. We understand

!

!

have discussions about what will be discussed in the class, regardless of what the content is, but

the word “mandatory” is the real problem.

Ben Meyerson, Chicago Headline Club, said he would argue this strays from SPJ’s core mission

as professional journalists.

Colin DeVries made motion that resolution be tabled. It was seconded by David Gordon of

David Levitt, New Jersey Pro, made a motion to add a friendly amendment to include what

Trump said about “opening up libel laws.” Lauren Bartlett, LA Pro, seconded. Discussion

included suggestion that the resolution would be more effective if it were as comprehensive as

possible, including language that no candidates should not block access to any journalist.

Voice vote was taken and resolution passed.

Resolution 7: Opposing Censorship by Wealth

Mike Farrell, Blue Grass Chapter, made motion, Elizabeth Donald of St. Louis Pro second.

Seaman, ethics committee chair who is not a delegate, could speak. Request was granted.

Seaman said the resolution singles out Sheldon Adelson because it is important to remember

what he did. There are many libel cases against him, the ethics committee heard from journalists

who are SPJ members who have been forced out of longtime careers because of the environment

he created in their newsroom. For example, one reporter’s story about him was edited to include

12 inches of copy about Adelson’s defense. She asked for her byline to be removed from the

story and was told no. If SPJ doesn’t stand up to this kind of behavior, who will? Seaman asked.

Vote was taken and resolution passed.

Albarado said as is tradition, he would read Resolutions 10 and 11 aloud -- thanking staff and

president for their work over the past year.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Fletcher reminded delegates about the Legal Defense Fund live auction followed by the

President’s Banquet later that evening where Lynn Walsh would be installed as new SPJ

!

!

delegates to take a post card on their way out, fill it out with names of people they think would

want to join SPJ as supporters, and hand the cards to staff or mail them to SPJ HQ.

CLOSING

Upon proper motion and second, the meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m. CT