Accountancy Board Chief Looks to New Year

The Trusted Professional recently interviewed New York State Board for Public Accountancy Chairman Nicholas J. Mastracchio Jr. by e-mail to discuss the board’s upcoming agenda, goals and general direction in the new calendar year.

Q: What will be the board’s goals in the coming months, especially in light of accounting reform bills brewing in the legislature?
A: The number-one goal is satisfactory legislation. We have been working to accomplish this for a few years and it is very important from the perspective of protecting the public interest. The State Education Department (SED) has been working hard on this issue, and discussions have taken place with various groups to get provisions that are satisfactory to the profession and the SED. We are cautiously optimistic that it can be accomplished this year. Other items to consider this year will be experience for licensure, substantial equivalency, limited permits for practice, transition to the CBT (computer-based test), and revised rule amendments proposed last year.

Q: The SED has recommended including in accounting legislation an element regarding substantial equivalency. Is there a possibility that pending legislation will include a substantial equivalency element?
A: The board has endorsed the concept of substantial equivalency (designed to allow CPAs to easily practice both in person and electronically across jurisdictions). We would be happy to see it in legislation and hope it will be there. 

Q: The first computer-based test for credentialing CPAs will be held this spring. What’s your opinion of the CBT?
A: I am enthusiastic about the revised course content of the exam. I believe it goes in the right direction in measuring research abilities and general business areas. The simulations should be an improvement on testing what one will do as a CPA. I also think it will be more convenient for the candidates to schedule a time that is good for them, and be able to schedule four times within one year for the various parts.

Q: Do you think it’s necessary to extend regulation of CPAs to members working in industry? If so, how should this be accomplished?
A: Recent scandals have shown that it would be desirable to regulate all those CPAs offering professional services. The only regulation that I am aware of being proposed that will really impact those in industry is the extending of the CPE (continuing professional education) requirement to members in industry.

Q: Should any legislation or regulation limit the kinds of services all CPAs are allowed to provide? What is the proper line between core services and prohibited services that will best preserve the integrity of the CPA license?
A: Of course legislation is already in place under the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) rules and Sarbanes-Oxley and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board mandates. The primary consideration should be independence where required…We have been reviewing (the) National Association of State Boards of Accountancy’s (NASBA) position and have some members of the board looking at the issue. However…we have not recommended any expansion of the restrictions to firms not covered by the SEC rules.

Q: California of late has introduced more public representation on its accountancy board. Should New York adopt a similar measure and increase public representation?
A: We have three public members on our board. They are very good and add another perspective to issues. Their opinions at meetings and on committees are valued, and I know they have convinced the board that their outlook should be adopted on a number of issues. They themselves agree that the board should have a majority of professional members who are more familiar with the issues. I believe that we are adequately represented and we should have CPAs from different career paths and in different geographic areas. I would not have any objection to additional public members, but I think the overall composition of the board should be considered when there are vacancies. Of course, New York is unique in that we are only advisory to the Regents (New York State Board of Regents). The Regents are all non-CPAs.