SPJ Members: Ask Chapter Delegates to Pass SPJ Supporter Bylaws Change

A Guest Post by Lynn Walsh, SPJ President-Elect

EIJ16 is almost a month away. On top of all of training and networking opportunities, SPJ chapter delegates will have an opportunity to vote on two proposed changes to the organizations bylaws.

One of them called “SPJ Supporters,” would help us redefine our Associate membership category to better attract people interested in journalism and protecting the First Amendment, but may not be practicing journalists.

Click here to read a condensed version of this post and the proposed bylaws change.

Journalism is not changing, it has changed.

As the ways in which people consume media change, the people creating it are also changing.

SPJ has always supported journalists through training, legal support, networking and more.

But, we also fight for the public’s right to know through FOIA and freedom of the press. We educate the public and speak out on ethical concerns in the media. And maybe most importantly, SPJ is able to take those fights to lawmakers, advocating on behalf of journalists but also the public.

Right now, our membership is made up almost entirely of journalists or former journalists. We want to see those numbers continue to grow, but journalists are not the only people who care about freedom of the press issues, access to public information and the pieces of work we produce that hold the powerful accountable.

In this day in age there is power in numbers. This is especially true if we want to engage lawmakers.

Just look at the NRA. According to a 2013 figure, the group estimates it has 4.3 million members. Right now, a membership costs $30 for one year. We have all witnesses how powerful the group can be at lobbying, preventing measures its members do not support, pushing through measures its members do support.

While SPJ may never be able to reach those type of membership numbers (a girl can dream, though) there are more people out there than just practicing journalists that care about journalism, freedom of the press, access to public information and holding the powerful accountable.

We want to start being able to better engage those individuals. By passing this bylaws amendment, I think we will be one step closer to making that happen.

People who support journalism and the issues SPJ fights for, defends and stands for can become Supporters. We already have the membership category (it was originally used for individuals working in PR) but now we can redefine it, re-brand it and better serve those who join in this category.

These people could be attorneys who work in FOIA or open records law areas. They might be citizen bloggers or activists who share information and report on issues, but may not consider themselves full-time journalists, therefore not have joined SPJ. Maybe these are just friends and family, general members of the public who have been impacted by a great journalist, who want to support our profession and fight for the public’s right to know.

SPJ Supporters would join at a reduced rate. They would not vote on national elections. They would receive newsletters and updates from SPJ designed for them. More information on how SPJ is fighting to fix FOIA, less information about tips on managing a newsroom or how to get a job in news. (Just an example. More information on this proposed bylaws change can be found here. )

The SPJ National Board members support it and so do I. I hope you will too. If you are not a chapter delegate, please contact your local chapters asking them to support it.

Let’s help bring the possibility of impact and influence back to journalists, the public and SPJ.

Lynn Walsh is the current President-Elect for SPJ. In her “day job” she manages and leads the NBC 7 Investigates team in San Diego. She loves holding the powerful accountable and spends more time than she would like fighting for access to public information. Follow her on Twitter, @LWalsh, or contact her via email: Lynn.K.Walsh@gmail.com.


The last roundup

Below is my column for the July/August 2016 issue of Quill:

This column for Quill is the last one I will write as president of the Society of Professional Journalists. As I take a look back on the year, I see, with great satisfaction, many accomplishments from the work of many people. Here’s a quick rundown:

MEMBERSHIP. In my induction speech last September, I noted that SPJ leadership hadn’t looked at membership in about 10 years. Virtually every professional association has had issues and declines in membership, especially since the 2008 recession. SPJ was not alone or immune.

We convened two different meetings, one in Arizona in January and the other in New Orleans in April, to brainstorm and determine ways to enhance membership, both for existing and potential members.

Two tracks emerged. The first, to be rolled out this fall, is designed to enlist people interested in fighting for journalism and freedom of information and to help those already doing so.

In tandem with this effort, SPJ President-Elect Lynn Walsh led a task force looking for a way to pull in all people who were interested in backing quality journalism and the causes we fight for. Her group developed the “supporters” of SPJ idea, and you’ll see a proposed bylaws change at EIJ16 to make this a reality. It’s an excellent idea, and a way to expand SPJ’s reach and influence.

The second membership track will be coming next year – it’s an emphasis on how SPJ helps a journalist at every step of his or her professional career.

Tara Puckey, our membership strategist, and Robin Davis Sekula, chair of the Membership Committee, also have been partnering this year on some well-executed and successful membership marketing campaigns.

SPJ GOVERNANCE. I wrote in my recent Quill column about the 41 percent problem: SPJ governs itself as a representative democracy, with all decisions coming from the annual convention.

But the only delegates at convention are those that represent SPJ chapters. We did a data-dive in late 2014 to learn that 41 percent – nearly half – of our membership is not affiliated with a chapter. In other words, they have no voice at convention.

I chaired a task force to study this problem, and possible solutions. When I became president, I asked Alex Tarquinio to continue and finish the work. She and the other task members did a great job in coming up with a proposed change to the SPJ bylaws, which you’ll also see at EIJ16, to establish a system of regional at-large delegates, truly making SPJ a representative democracy.

This summer, the SPJ board considered a proposal to redraw the regional lines and reduce the size of the board. While that effort wasn’t successful, it prompted us to think about a more global look at SPJ governance and the board itself. Region 4 Director Patti Gallagher Newberry will be chairing a task force on governance, starting this summer and continuing into Lynn’s term.

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS. In December, I led a group to the White House, where we spoke with President Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, on behalf of 53 journalism organizations.

The topic: The trend by public information officers at federal agencies to prevent journalists from doing their jobs and getting information to the American people. The problem has gotten worse, not better, under the “most transparent administration in history,” which is what the president called for the day after his inauguration in 2009.

PIOs have become a stifling pinchpoint for information, or in the case where interviews actually are allowed, minders who seek to make sure that the company line is preserved.

Earnest was cordial and the conversation was candid. But we haven’t seen any follow-up as the Obama administration plays out the clock.

I choose to be an optimist on a daily basis, but this problem is only going to get worse. And it doesn’t matter which candidate wins the presidential election in November.

FIX FOIA by 50. Finally, this was a big one. SPJ is a member of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a combine of nine journalist and open-government groups. SGI worked tirelessly on behalf of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, a measure that passed both houses of Congress unanimously. “Fix FOIA by 50” was the mantra, seeking passage of the bill before the 50th anniversary of the act’s initial passage.

The bill brings FOIA into the 21st century; among other reforms, it allows for electronic requests and requires electronic documents to be created. There will be a single online portal to submit FOIA requests to agencies. It establishes, by statute, a presumption of openness in our government.

President Obama signed the bill on June 30, just a few days before July 4, the day President Lyndon Johnson signed the first FOIA in 1966. We fixed FOIA by 50, and we gave America a little something extra to celebrate on Independence Day this year.

Let me close with a couple of thank yous:

To all our professional staff in Indianapolis for the hard work they do for us, and to three people there in particular with whom I have worked closely: To Joe Skeel, for his steady hand as executive director; to Jennifer Royer, our communications strategist who keeps watch on the issues of day and connects SPJ to the media; and to Tara Puckey, who as member strategist is taking the ideas we’ve developed this year and pushing them to reality.

To the other leaders on the ladder with whom I have served over the past three years – Dave Cuillier, Dana Neuts, Lynn Walsh and Rebecca Baker. It has been a real pleasure and honor to work alongside you.

To all the members of the SPJ board. Your service, ideas, passion and hard work on behalf of journalists and journalism are vital.

Above all, thank you for the opportunity to serve as your leader this year.

Despite the many issues in the profession, I can’t think of a better, more fulfilling way to earn a living.

See you in New Orleans!


FOIA reform…next stop, President Obama’s desk

Hurray! The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved the Senate’s Freedom of Information Act reform bill yesterday, sending the bill to President Obama.

A day later, the Society of Professional Journalists and other news media organizations are still celebrating this important step taken by Congress.

Improving and strengthening the FOIA had been the focus of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a group of nine journalism and free-information groups, including SPJ.

We all are strongly urging the president to sign these bipartisan reforms as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the original FOIA law on July 4, 1966. All signs are saying that he will.

SPJ and more than 50 other journalism and open government organizations have been pushing for a more open and transparent government for quite some time.

Among other improvements, the bill will establish a presumption of openness in the government (usually set by incoming presidents by executive order, but not a statutory requirement) and it will require all federal agencies to establish a single access portal.

FOIA reform is important for not only journalists, but the public as well. An open government is a healthy and robust government. When government leaders and agencies are allowed to keep information secret and hidden, journalists and citizens alike are kept in the dark and the foundations of American democracy fail.

Passage of this important legislation is due to the efforts of many people, but special thanks go to
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, D-Md. for their leadership and hard work working on a bipartisan basis, as well as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chaired the committee in the 113th Congress and introduced the original House bill (H.R. 653).

In the Senate, special thanks are due to two senators — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy , D-Vt. – for their bipartisan efforts to help make our government more transparent and accountable to the public.


SPJ board reduction proposal rejected

The board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists held an electronic meeting yesterday, May 23, to consider a proposal to reduce the size of the 23-member board by four members.

The proposal from Region 3 Regional Director Michael Koretzky would have reduced the existing 12 regions to nine; one of the campus adviser seats would have been eliminated.

The plan was announced two weeks ago and feedback was requested from the membership.

Thank you for the many thoughtful responses and the level of input provided to your RDs.

The rationale behind the reduction was to make the board more nimble in its decision-making and to conserve funds for RDs.

The feedback was mixed. Those who opposed the measure disliked the fact that travel could be farther for regional conferences; a number of members took issue with the state lines that had been drawn.

The board discussed the measure for 45 minutes on Monday. A vote was taken on the region-reduction proposal, with an amendment that would have restored Kentucky to the Midwest, kept Kansas and Missouri together and kept Utah and Colorado together.

The vote 3 in favor, 13 against, with one abstention.

While several board members advocated keeping the status quo, many expressed a desire to consider potential changes to the board’s organization.

In consultation with President-Elect Lynn Walsh, I have appointed a task force, to be chaired by Region 4 RD Patti Newberry, to explore improvements to board governance.

Anyone who is interested in the issue and potentially serving on this group, please contact me or Lynn. We will be putting together the group and determining its charge in the next few weeks.


SPJ considers reduction in size of board

The SPJ Board of Directors would have four fewer members, under a proposal pending before the board.

Three regional director seats would be eliminated, and one of the two campus chapter adviser seats would go away. A newly configured board would have 19 members instead of 23.

Under the proposal from Region 3 director Michael Koretzky, the new lineup would be:
• Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont
• Region 2: Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia
• Region 3: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
• Region 4: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
• Region 5 (formerly 12): Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee
• Region 6: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin
• Region 7 (formerly 8): Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
• Region 8 (formerly 10): Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming
• Region 9 (formerly 11): Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, Mariana Islands, Utah

Every one of the regions would get at least one additional state, except Region 1, which would get the western half of Pennsylvania (currently part of Region 4).

The changes are needed, according to Koretzky, for these reasons:
• If approved, this paring of SPJ’s board will make it more nimble without sacrificing representation. By comparison, other national journalism groups have smaller governing boards. For example, IRE and ONA have 13-member boards that function quite well.

• Current technology will allow regional directors to keep in touch with larger geographic areas. The current configuration and board size predate the use of virtual meetings, email and cell phones.

• The proposed elimination of one campus position is in response to perceived over-representation of academia on the board. Usually there are several RDs who are journalism professors.

The board met by telephone Zoom conference on Monday, May 9, to begin discussing and vetting the proposal. Changing the number of regions can be accomplished in a simple board vote. Elimination of a campus chapter adviser position would require a vote by convention delegates at EIJ16; a board vote would provide a recommendation to the delegates.

In the interest of transparency, the board is publicizing the proposal to permit feedback and member input.

Please contact your regional director or any SPJ officer to provide feedback; you can find email addresses for the board at spj.org/spjboard.asp.

The board will meet again by Zoom conference the week of May 23 to discuss and vote on the proposal.


Putting the press above it all

RICHMOND, VA–When and where did a pair of binoculars become standard equipment for a political journalist?

Last week, at the Virginia Capitol.

The Virginia General Assembly, the world’s oldest deliberative body, convened for its 2016 session on Jan. 13, and reporters who cover the statehouse got a surprise.

Jeff Schapiro of the Richmond Times-Dispatch covers the Virginia Senate (Photo by Peter Vieth)

Jeff Schapiro of the Richmond Times-Dispatch covers the Virginia Senate (Photo by Peter Vieth)

Without notice and without explanation, the Republican majority (a 21-19 advantage) adopted a new rule: Reporters would no longer work from tables on the Senate floor; they were banished to the gallery above the chamber.

The practice of allowing reporters on the floor of the Senate dates back for decades. The journalists can follow the action and they have ready access to senators for interviews. Toward the end of a session, when a glut of legislation faces a deadline, floor placement allows quick access to substitute versions of bills and amendments.

Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment, R-James City County, put an end to that.

Norment has enjoyed prickly relations with reporters over the years. Exactly why he did this is not hard to figure: It’s a poke in the eye at the press that has reported on his cozy relations with business, apparent favors granted and his sometimes messy personal life.

Because of this strike at the press, he has guaranteed that any story reporting the new rule will need to explain the strained relationship and dredge up all that history.

Norment isn’t alone in trying this press-unfriendly tactic. Republicans who control the Missouri Senate have done the same thing, according to an article in Columbia Journalism Review. In the Show-Me State, reporters will move March 29 from a table on the Senate floor to the gallery above. Last year, they were booted from first floor offices to the fifth floor, where there is no elevator access.

Jeff Schapiro, who covers politics for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, brought a little theater to the new arrangement in Richmond. The day after the new rule was adopted he was in the cramped new press space with a pair of binoculars to cover the action 20 feet below.

My office is a couple of blocks from the Virginia Capitol, a grand building designed by Thomas Jefferson. One wonders what Mr. Jefferson would think of the new restrictions on press access.

I went to the Senate last Thursday to check out the new arrangement for the statehouse press first-hand. A few quick observations:

• To get to the balcony, one has to ride one of two elevators three flights or climb as many flights of steep stairs.
• Reporters are confined to the far corners of the balcony, with five seats each on either side.
• You can’t see half of the Senate when you’re there. On each side, there is one electrical plug with two outlets. For long sessions, reporters better have a spare battery, maybe two or three, for their laptops and cellphones.
• The television people, with their cameras, will take up more space than just a single person.
• When things really get rolling, 10 seats may not be enough. Any additional space will eat into the seating allotted for the public.
• To get copies of floor amendments or substitute measures, so one is going to need to run up and down the aforementioned stairs, unless the elevators get to be lightning-fast.
• To buttonhole senators after a session breaks up, one is also going to need to run down those same steps before they slip away.

Will Norment’s rule make it impossible to cover the Senate? No, but it will make it more difficult.

And it’s the attitude behind this stunt that is troublesome. This doesn’t just hurt the press and the journalists who cover the Senate. Reporters are the public’s eyes and ears when the Assembly is in session. Virginia has a part-time legislature, so that isn’t for a long period of time.

Twenty other senators went along with this. Schapiro reported in his Jan. 17 column in the T-D that no other Republican senator is publicly defending the new rule…they want to change the subject.

Democrats in the Senate oppose the rule, and it’s especially distressing to think that press access and press freedom has become a partisan issue.

I talked with Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath County, as we left the General Assembly Thursday.

He shook his head in disbelief when I asked about the new situation. “It isn’t healthy,” he said. “We have nothing to fear but ourselves.”

With his binoculars, Schapiro got the attention of the Senate leadership. Word was senators’ laptops may be outfitted with privacy screens to prevent any view from above.

Norment didn’t like the binoculars. “Why do you keep doing that crap?” he asked Schapiro.

That’s a question we’d all like to ask the Senate Majority Leader.

 


Progress on fixing FOIA

Three cheers for the U.S. House of Representatives, which has approved the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act of 2015 (H.R. 653), which will improve the federal Freedom of Information Act.

This legislation helps journalists and other citizens better access their government, and today’s vote proves that Congress can work together to make government more transparent and accountable.

After the experience with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, which passed the House overwhelmingly, squeaked through the Senate, then foundered back in the House, the passage of H.R. 653 is significant.

Congress doesn’t approve FOIA fixes very often, so getting this legislation through the Senate and signed into law would be a big win for transparency and helping the American people obtain the information they are entitled to see.

A big hat tip to the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a media coalition of which SPJ is a member. SGI has worked to increase government transparency for more than 10 years. This year’s target is to pass legislation to “Fix FOIA by 50.” July 4, 2016, will mark the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s signing FOIA into law. SGI’s campaign has been using the hashtag #FixFOIAby50.

H.R. 653 is something you don’t see on Capitol Hill too often any more – bipartisan legislation. Two Republicans — Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, joined with Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Mike Quigley of Illinois to make the bill happen. A salute to all of them. Well done.

H.R. 653 has any number of improvements to the FOIA. Some big ones to note include:

* Codification of the existing “presumption of openness” policy. This has been established by executive order by different presidents. Now it would be in the law.

* A common portal. The Office of Management and Budget is charged with developing a government-wide portal system for submitting and tracking requests.

* Email requests. Agencies would be required to accept requests by email instead of time-consuming snail mail.

* Frequent requests. Agencies would be required to post online any document for which there has been at least three requests.

The House did its part. Here’s hoping the Senate will soon follow the House’s lead so we can celebrate a stronger, improved FOIA.


A membership strategy plan in the works

The Society of Professional Journalists will begin working on a membership strategy plan at the SPJ Executive Committee meeting next month in Arizona.

But you can play a part and help us now – look for a short survey in your email in the next day or so from SPJ, asking your thoughts and opinions about your membership. (Update: The survey was emailed to members on 12/18/15. Here is the link).

The survey comes from Tim Daniel, a facilitator we will be using in the strategy development process. The SPJ board approved retaining Tim and holding a session with SPJ leaders and members in Scottsdale in January.

Tim most recently worked with RTDNA on their strategic planning; NAB is a past client of his, as are a number of media-related businesses and groups.

The strategy session will involve the members of the Executive Committee (me, Lynn Walsh, Rebecca Baker, Dana Neuts, Sue Kopen-Katcef, Joe Radske and Bill McCloskey), along with Robyn Sekula, chair of the Membership Committee, and April Bethea, chair of the Diversity Committee. We also invited two people from next door in California, Monica Dattage, who is one of this year’s student reps on the board, and Sam Stewart, an SPJ Diversity Fellow.

Two other leaders who live in Arizona will be there – Robert Leger, president of the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation board, and SPJ Past-President Dave Cuillier. Several members of the SPJ professional staff from HQ also will attend (Joe Skeel, Chris Vachon, Jennifer Royer, Tara Puckey and Linda Hall).

This society has not looked at the question of membership systematically and strategically in at least 10 years, so this process is long overdue. We hope to develop a comprehensive approach to share with the full board at its meeting in April as we work toward an action plan. We’ll be reporting the results of the strategy session after its conclusion.

In the meantime, efforts have been under way to bring back former SPJ members. I asked Robyn and her committee to take a look at membership marketing as I took office. She and Tara have been busy – they developed a series of four different email messages/letters, segmented by demographics. Last week, they reached out to more than 8,000 past members, asking them to renew their ties to SPJ. Robyn reports that the initial response has been good – we’ll report more as we get more results.

So, again, please take the time to fill out the short survey and help us do all we can to work on this vital issue! Thank you.


Only response to free-speech bullies: some muscle

In the cold, clear light of a second-day story, the words are still chilling:

“Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here!”

As most journalists in America now know, the woman who made that statement was Melissa Click, a communications professor at the University of Missouri, caught on a video that went viral.

The video, photographed by student Mark Schierbecker, documented, among other things, efforts by student photojournalist Tim Tai to cover student protesters at Mizzou; the video was shot after news that university system president Tim Wolfe had resigned. The journalists presumably were seeking comment and reaction to the resignation.

But come back to Click. She sought to shut down the student press in a way that was threatening. Some muscle? Really? Should Schierbecker have feared for his personal safety?

To their great credit, Schierbecker and Tai showed respect, resolution, calmness, professionalism and yes, courage, considering they were faced with an unhappy crowd chanting, “Hey hey ho ho, reporters have got to go!”

Click since has issued an apology for her actions, which Schierbecker said in a tweet that he did not accept. No doubt she is hoping that everyone, including the school she works for, will move on.

But should the rest of us let Click off easy? I don’t think so. There is a word for someone who treated the journalists the way she did: Bully.

She bullied Schierbecker, and the call for help to remove him forcibly is inexcusable and indefensible.

Since she was trying to shut down press coverage, call her a free speech bully, attempting to squelch a reporter.

Here is another reason not to let her off the hook: She’s not alone in higher education.

Within the past year, SPJ has tracked no fewer than six examples of journalism advisers at colleges across America who have run afoul of their schools’ leaders for (gasp!) encouraging student journalists to do their jobs and cover the school.

In each case, the administration would prefer that the student press run happy news, or perhaps recipes, instead of stories seeking to hold (often) public employees accountable.

In one of the adviser altercations, the school paper’s editor-in-chief provided his notes of his run-in with a high-level administrator. “Free speech bully” again would be the operative phrase. The encounter was intimidating and oppressive: the administrator was unhappy the paper had run articles about mold in university buildings.

Frank LoMonte runs the Student Press Law Center, and his job is to watch all this and to offer help and, if necessary, legal support.

In a Facebook post last weekend, LoMonte noted he had just returned from a visit to a public university where the student reporters are required to submit their interview questions for the university president in writing to a media-relations functionary.

This minion rewrites any questions that are unacceptably “negative” and sends back a script, to which the journalists are told to adhere under threat of unspecified reprisal, he said.

I asked him: At what university did this occur?

LoMonte demurred, citing the need to minimize harm (See SPJ Code of Ethics, section II). The students were so frightened that he would need to get their OK to out the school. I am not a fan of citing incidents without names, but I trust the source here.

It’s important to note that the people involved here are college kids, between ages 18 and 21. No doubt the students LoMonte dealt with are frightened.

All these incidents, showing a careless disregard for free speech and the free press, sound like something out of a tinpot dictatorship or some leftover totalitarian regime. Tendering questions for sanitation by a minion sounds like great job training for a position at George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth after graduation.

But these stories are happening at colleges in this country, one with a history and laws that protect free speech and a free press. These schools, if they bother to teach the Constitution, must be saying that it has only nine amendments…that first one got deleted somewhere along the way.

No student should face intimidation, threats of personal violence or reprisal – simply for doing his or her job as a journalist.

The only response, I think, to free speech bullies is some muscle.

Not sending goons out to do physical harm to anyone, but push-back. Exposure. Forceful calling out. Telling the tales. Litigation when needed. Financial support for those lawsuits. And a clear message that that is what they can expect.

Because when confronted, bullies fold and run.

Updated 2/8/16, to correct the spelling of Mark Schierbecker’s name.


Jane Primerano elected RD for Region 1

The SPJ Board of Directors held a virtual meeting on Oct, 27 with three items of business.

REGION 1 RD ELECTION. Jane Primerano was elected Regional Director for Region 1; this position became open following the election of Rebecca Baker as Secretary-Treasurer. Jane is a freelance writer based in Hope, New Jersey. She is the past president of the NJ Pro chapter of SPJ and of NJ Press Women. Congratulation, Jane – we look forward to working with you on the board.

ACEJMC PROCEDURES. The board adopted a procedure for selecting and approving SPJ’s representative to the Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Sonny Albarado was ratified as the successor to Steve Geimann,who held the post for 19 years.

GAMING JOURNALISM AWARDS TRIAL PROGRAM. On a one-year experimental basis, the board approved creation of an awards program for excellence in gaming journalism. More details on the program will be coming.


Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ