| President
Riley reminded members that at its December meeting, the Board
was unable to have a full presentation of the preliminary
report of the Bylaws Revision Task Force. He then turned
the floor over to Mr. Lauchert, chair of the Bylaws Revision
Task Force, for a presentation of the report.
Mr. Lauchert
began with an executive summary, noting that approval in concept
was being sought with respect to the following seven points:
1. Conforming
NYSSCPA Bylaws to AICPA practices regarding admonishments.
2. Improving
ethics transparency by permitting the notification of complainants
upon completion of a case.
3. Clarifying
current bylaw language regarding the effect of a change in
membership classification status during the fiscal year.
4. Clarifying
that membership termination
(a) is automatic at the end of the fiscal year
in which a member dies, and
(b) must be finally approved the Board or Executive
Committee in all other instances.
In the
ensuing discussion, Mr. Woehlke clarified that the rationale
behind 4(a) was to eliminate the need for the Board or Executive
Commiittee to take formal action on the membership terminations
of deceased members.
5. Adding
limitations on associate members precluding them from chairing
operating division committees and serving as chapter officers.
6. Providing
a mechanism for removal of non-officers from the Executive
Committee due to non-attendance.
7. Making
certain “housekeeping” changes, including elimination of references
to COCO and other items identified in the report.
The Board discussed the seven points one by one, approving
each by consensus.
Mr. Lauchert
then noted that the task force was seeking additional guidance
from the Board on the following proposals which he said were
supported in varying degrees by the task force:
1. Making
peer review mandatory for the membership of those in firms
that provide attest services to the public and, perhaps, others
(unanimously supported by the task force).
2. Limiting
nominating committee membership to one person from a firm.
With respect
to mandatory peer review, Mr. Riley noted that the Society’s
white paper on peer review encouraged mandatory peer review
for the membership and also suggested that it be legislatively
mandated for CPAs in New York state. He acknowledged arguments
that a membership peer review requirement could result in
decreased membership numbers, but noted the AICPA itself maintained
a mandatory peer review requirement. He also pointed out
that NYSSCPA members had been apprised of the issue through
Society publications, the website and at chapter visitations
conducted over the prior two years.
Mr. Langowski
then provided perspectives on the issue from the standpoint
as past president and chair of the Quality Enhancement Policy
Committee which developed the peer review white paper. He
noted that although a number of state societies required peer
reviews of their members, most were states with legislatively
mandated requirements; therefore, only a handful of state
societies had enacted a mandatory membership requirement without
supporting legislation. He cautioned against enacting a membership
peer review requirement without the support of state legislation.
He suggested that the discussion of a bylaws peer review requirement
be tabled until there has been more progress on a legislative
initiative. Mr. Lifson agreed, opining that he felt it more
powerful to support mandatory peer review through legislation
without pursuing a bylaws amendment at this time. The Board
by consensus tabled the discussion.
Board members discussed the issue of limiting nominating committee
membership to one person from a firm, and potential problems
where two or more nominating committee members’ firms merged
or joined common networks. Several opined that the rule would
further an appearance of fairness in that one firm could not
be seen as influencing the slate of nominees. Others noted,
however, that in the case of an election, the nominating
committee
ballot would disclose all firm affiliations and that the limitation
may be seen as a restriction of dues paying members’ rights.
After
discussion of the issue, it was the consensus of the Board
not to pursue limiting nominating committee membership to
one person from a firm.
Mr. Torres
then moved to expose the proposals contained in the Bylaws
Revision Task Force’s preliminary report to the membership
in anticipation of final Board approval at a future meeting.
Mr. Lesser seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. |
