Splendor in the Grassroots
Society Members Respond in Force to Surprise Legislation

By Simon Eskow

New York— It came as a surprise to many observers that the New York State Assembly would introduce a previously unheard-of accounting reform bill, just days before summer recess.

It was equally surprising to many lawmakers how quickly, and strongly, members of the New York State Society of CPAs registered their opposition to the bill, A11695.

Members deluged lawmakers with e-mails, letters and telephone calls in a grassroots lobbying effort that, at least in part, put the bill on the back burner for the summer. The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Ron Canestrari, appeared to have pole position in a race to an Assembly floor vote.

But, word spread from the Society to its Key Contact Persons who contacted other Society members, all of whom voiced their opposition with Assembly members, proving themselves a potent force in state politics.

“That was absolutely a good sign,” Sandra Napoleon-Hudson, a Key Contact Person with the Westchester Chapter, said. “We have to get out there and we have to become politically aggressive. And this is how we do it. We have to say, ‘We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.’”

There was something to be angry about. The State Senate on June 17 unanimously passed a bill (S302-D) that would have established mandatory peer review, a more defined scope of practice, and universal CPE requirements for CPAs in industry as well as for auditors, among other things.

Although S302-D had passed in June 2003 only to fizzle out in the Assembly, Sen. Kenneth LaValle held at least five meetings with counterparts in the Assembly in the last session to garner their input. The bill remained intact, but when it was sent to the Assembly, A11695 was introduced in its place, despite the fact that Canestrari had already sponsored a version of the Senate bill.

The new bill seemed to mark a major shift in emphasis from the Senate bill.

“The focus was penalize and punish rather than control and improve,” Raymond Nowicki, a Key Contact for the Buffalo Chapter. “That is clearly not in the interest of anybody…(when) other governing authorities have shown that training and education work better than penalties.”

Wildfire

The Society quickly spread the word to Society leadership and Key Contact Persons throughout the state with e-mails outlining the general provisions of Canestrari’s bill. The outline addressed, among other things, conflict of interest provisions similar to those of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board that seemed redundant; a substantial equivalency provision that could raise constitutional issues; a limited temporary practice provision; and a penalty for misconduct ranging up to $50,000 against a licensee—far exceeding the $10,000 maximum applied to other licensed professions.

Many Key Contact Persons asked other members to voice their opposition, and the response was immediate and vociferous.

Gerald Flynn, a Key Contact in the Suffolk Chapter, called to tell the chief of staff for his representative, Assemblyman Steve Engelbright, that A11695 would “allow butchers to prepare compilations.”

“The points that I tried to drive home to him were the ones that the public wasn’t protected by the fact that anyone could do a compilation, and I used the butcher as an example,” Flynn said.

Engelbright, who sits on the Assembly’s Higher Education Committee, voted against A11695.

“New York State has always been a leader when it comes to protecting the consumer, the public, in this state,” Napoleon-Hudson wrote in an e-mail to Westchester county Assembly members. “I assure you that A11695 does not go far enough to be a true New York document! We, the CPA professionals, embrace the enhanced accountability and transparency that (Sen. LaValle’s bill) provides.”

Nowicki said that he asked members in other firms near him to also voice their opposition.

“It was clear the firms appreciated the opportunity to take charge of the situation,” Nowicki said. “They respected what the Society was doing.”

Nowicki agreed that the Society’s “call to arms” was effective and addressed some of the strategic goals established in 2002.

“There’s a consensus among the profession and our goals in trying to fight the one bill and promote the other bill (S302-D),” he said. “These efforts were consistent with the strategic plan. So I think we did a good day’s work.”