President's Commentary

By George T. Foundotos, CPA

The article suggested that we were going our own way on the proposed model UAA law. It states, "New York CPAs break ranks from AICPA and NASBA on UAA." Not really. Actually, we are forging ahead to get our law amended to comply in most areas. We are apparently ahead of the other six largest states on the road to enactment. No disrespect meant to the smaller states, but if the UAA is to succeed, the big states have to act.

We are striving for "substantial equivalency" but have to work around our state's constitutional duty to protect the public, without giving up the state's sovereign authority. No problem: This is what our governor and legislature are supposed to do. We worded our proposal to satisfy the governor's and legislature's constitutional responsibilities. On the proportionate liability issue, we are still supporting it but as a separate issue and not part of our proposal to amend New York state's existing accountancy law.

Within our proposed amendment is the change in the CPE requirement. The New York State Board for Public Accountancy has recently approved a change that will allow certain technology MAP subjects to qualify for CPE. (See related article on page 1.) Lest you run out and register--wait. It may take some time before it gets to the Board of Regents for final approval. This long time line is why we are including the change in our proposal--along with the 120 hours in three years, with a minimum of 20 hours in a year.

Where we differ, and it is a very fundamental difference, is the experience requirement. There was an overwhelming dislike for the nonpublic experience proposal on the statewide level. Depending upon the constituency, disdain ran from about 75 percent to 99.44 percent. Our lack of support will cause all the other states to look at this issue more closely and perhaps rethink their positions. At the AICPA Council meeting, several representatives from other states told me that they felt we were providing a valuable service by forcing a new evaluation of this idea.

The brethren laboring in the field have had a chance to look at the UAA now that the proposal is out. Those of us in the field will be directly affected and we have indicated in the changes that we want to protect the public interest and our interest, which are pretty much the same on this issue.

Our strategy is to amend the existing law, not to introduce a new one. We will submit our proposal to the governor and legislature directly, rather than go up the ladder from State Board for Accountancy to Education Department to Board of Regents. We certainly will work with them but not through them. It is a political decision for a political subject. We believe it is the most effective and timely way to achieve our goals and objectives, while taking the point to the national stage and regaining our leadership role.

When you follow, the view never changes. I have had enough of the distinguished state of Florida and the great state of Texas setting the national accounting agenda. As the center of the financial universe, it is our rightful turn to influence and lead.

Why amend the statute instead of the regulations? We cannot wait eight years to get this done as we waited for a change in contingency fees, or 12 years to enact the 150-hour educational requirement. True, when you deal with a statute, you stand the risk of opening a can of worms and take the risk of having undesirable amendments added. And yes, you cannot keep going back and changing the statute every time you discover a problem. Statute has more force than regulation, and it will be the quickest way to effect our changes. We believe we have worded our amendment to the statute with sufficient specificity to accomplish our objectives but with sufficient breadth to allow for flexibility.

All our constituencies have rallied to the common cause. The Big Five firms have as much to lose and gain as the solo practitioners in Youngstown, Plattsburgh, Herkimer, Central Valley, and East Hampton or the corporate people in Dunkirk, Vestal, Edgewood, and Selkirk or the professors in Niagara, Brockport, Ithaca, or Selden. The industry people also are beginning to stir at our prompting and are taking their rightful place at the table. Working together behind the banner of the NYSSCPA, we, the trusted professionals, are all noble, pure, and good.

What is your role in this great crusade? Well, we cannot leave it to Lou Grumet & Co.--i.e., other Society staff members Jim Woehlke, Joanne Barry, Jim Craig, and Fong Chan to sally forth to Albany on our behalf, while Lorrie Lamazor and her crew work the chapters. If that is what you expect, then we will come up short--if we come up at all. At the right time, you must get involved at the grass roots. We no longer can be the trusted professional sitting quietly and meekly in the back room. We must be more outspoken. We (you) should not be antagonistic or belligerent nor bombastic or obnoxious. We (you) must be more forceful and visible. It is a different role, but the circumstances require, nay, mandate it.

I received the first draft of the amendments the day before Thanksgiving. By the time you read this, we probably will be on the third or fourth draft after the Executive Committee has a go at it and a group of street-smart A & A mavens have looked at it. Then it is your turn. While I seem to refer to public accountants all the time, the members in industry, government, and education are very much a part of this. I do so because public accounting defines us all. The special characteristics and concerns of industry, government, and education are added on for those members.

To coin a phrase, "It's going to be fun." Will you be there? *

president@nysscpa.org.

The Society's Professional Ethics Com