SHARE:  Usually long before I pen the beginning drafts of my President’s Memo, I spend significant time looking through the thoughts and ideas I have jotted down that I might want to write about. This forum provides me a unique opportunity to opine, suggest and, sometimes, attempt to persuade readers on issues, challenges and opportunities. As this opportunity avails itself only on a quarterly basis, it is sometimes difficult to decide on and prioritize a topic or focus. For the past few months, I have been compiling snippets and notes for this Memo that I was sure would be about the debate over 120 vs.150 and the potential impact to substantial equivalence and mobility for U.S. CPAs and CPA firms because of legislation being proposed. As those discussions and resultant rhetoric advanced, it ultimately became apparent to me that, while the issue is critically important, so are relationships. I decided to shift from 120 vs.150 to “Diplomacy,” albeit a topic not directly related to the issues we are facing. At the recent NASBA Annual Conference for Executive Directors and Board Staff, which was attended by nearly pre-COVID numbers of executive directors and state board staff, plus record numbers of board attorneys and State CPA Society executives, there were formidable discussions about a myriad of issues, including 120 vs.150 and the shrinking number of CPA candidates. The discussions were intense, and in some cases, became heated. Early in the conference, the conference chair recognized the potential for disagreements and mentioned the importance of “diplomacy.” That caught my ear, particularly after observing some rather non-diplomatic discussions. As a plain-speaking Missouri boy, I have been accused (completely justifiably) of using words or phrases improperly. In this case, I looked at several definitions of the word “diplomacy” to make sure it was appropriate for this discussion. The definition that best fit my intent is “Diplomacy is the art and science of maintaining peaceful relationships between nations, groups, or individuals when discussing conflict issues.” I do not want to exaggerate the “heated” conference discussions I referenced earlier, but I am certain that everyone in attendance witnessed a degree of tension and hostility that was somewhat unprecedented for this conference. To readers who were not present, I can assure you that there were no fisticuffs, and tensions settled down quickly, but the importance of measured and diplomatic discussions became apparent to me. The debate, compromises and consensus on important matters have always been an important component of NASBA meetings and conferences. As to the galvanizing topics at hand, because of the decrease in CPA candidates entering the profession, firms of all sizes across the United States are struggling to find and hire new CPAs and they are looking for actions from state societies, state boards, NASBA and the AICPA. This shortage of new licensees is made worse by the increasing number of baby-boomer CPAs who are retiring, coupled with the increasing amount of work in firms. The impact of COVID, including the phenomena of “the great resignation” has only amplified the issue. Recently, radical remedies and solutions are being considered and proposed, some of which many of us believe could make matters even worse. However, I think most of us that are close to these discussions agree that, to get traction, we are going to have to consider some ideas that others may consider to be radical. NASBA staff and volunteers have worked closely with the AICPA to develop strategies and implementable plans to provide short and long term plans for consideration. The CPA Evolution and Experience, Learn and Earn (ELE) programs are slated to begin later this year. Other proposals, such as an Amnesty policy for candidates who lost parts because of the disruption and resultant distortions of the COVID pandemic, are also being considered. Again, the concept of Amnesty is a radical idea that must be acceptable to Boards of Accountancy. Every strategy we are considering will not, and cannot, disrupt substantial equivalency or mobility. Back to the title, Diplomacy. It is not unusual for disagreements, particularly passionate disagreements, to hurt feelings and damages egos….and several of us in this particular debate do not suffer from the lack of an ego. I do not personally know some of the folks that support a legislative remedy that NASBA may strongly oppose because of the disruption of substantial equivalency and mobility. Others, I know well. Of those who I do know, many I hold in high regard and have no doubt as to their integrity and intent. In my role as president and CEO of NASBA, representing the interests of state boards and the NASBA Board of Directors, I will aggressively work to oppose any threat to substantial equivalency and mobility. However, I am committed to being diplomatic and “maintaining peaceful relationships” as we work through these important issues. I hope all of you will do the same, committed to Diplomacy. Semper ad meliora (Always toward better things). — Ken L. Bishop |
