AICPA global credential proposal and NYSSCPA member survey

Survey results and commentaries: Food for thought

In December 2000, the NYSSCPA surveyed its membership on their opinions regarding the AICPA's proposed global business credential. The high response rate was surprising, especially for tax season, and the results were illuminating. The editors shared the survey results with four individuals whose sterling credentials, as well as diverse backgrounds and affiliations, make them uniquely qualified to comment. They did not disappoint-their commentaries follow. Background information on the global credential proposal itself is available on the Web at www.globalcredential.aicpa.org and at www.nysscpa.org/home/xyz/xyzdesignation.htm.

On the importance of listening
By P. Gerard Sokolski, CPA, president, NYSSCPA

The most important insight to be gained from this survey is the importance of listening to the members themselves. The initial grass-roots reaction to the proposed global credential was strongly negative, and apparently those positions haven’t changed over time. Although the NYSSCPA recognizes the AICPA’s importance to our members as a service organization and supports it in principal, our role and responsibility is to represent our members. Consequently, our concern that the AICPA’s research on the Cognitor concept seemed to lack the vital component of direct member input was what motivated the NYSSCPA to undertake such a survey among our own members. A 20% response rate could do nothing less than strengthen our resolve in knowing we had decided correctly.

The results of the survey itself raise important questions: Is Cognitor really of benefit, and to whom? Also, should Cognitor’s development be funded by CPAs’ dues to the AICPA if a majority of the members don’t support the concept? Beyond the discussion of Cognitor, how do we best serve all of our members “in the trenches” serving clients or their employers every day? When I attend the AICPA Council meeting in May, I will take with me such answers as our members have given me, which in this case means asking questions that may seem rhetorical but most certainly are not. For example: How do we move forward with a proposal for a global credential that 75% of our members do not believe would better define for the public the range of services CPAs currently provide?

One idea is not enough, especially a bad one
By Robert Israeloff, CPA, former chair, AICPA; past president, NYSSCPA

If the results of this survey represent the entire AICPA membership (and I believe they do), then clearly the membership has spoken and the leadership should take heed. No matter how visionary the concept, the AICPA cannot ask its members to follow where they obviously don’t want to go. Now, the AICPA can either plow ahead destructively like the proverbial bull in a china shop or reassess and develop alternatives that will achieve its vision without alienating its membership. Expanding the scope of the CPA designation to recognize other professional services is laudable, but a credential that is open to other disciplines isn’t the way, because it will inevitably elevate nonprofessionals into a formidable competitive force by granting them professional status. The AICPA leadership’s primary job should be extending the CPA brand by helping business leaders and the public accept CPAs rendering services in related areas. But since the AICPA began its broad-based public image campaign to promote the CPA in 1995, it has spent less than $10 million per year—not nearly enough.

To its credit, the AICPA is addressing what Barry Melancon calls the “eye of the needle” problem: Anyone who wants to be a CPA must pass the relatively narrow education, examination, and experience requirements of an auditor, even if he specializes in taxes or consulting. But I fault the AICPA for bringing Council only one solution—this new credential—rather than several well-developed alternatives.

All CPA firms want to attract the best and brightest for providing various professional services. But how, when young professionals must pass through the narrow eye of accounting education? My own proposed solution: The AICPA should create a credential for non-CPA employees of CPA firms. I am certain other Council members can articulate other intelligent ideas for effectively dealing with the “eye of the needle,” recruitment, and service expansion problems. We need to start now.

Opening a gateway of opportunity
By Kathy G. Eddy, chair, AICPA

The results of the NYSSCPA’s recent survey support many points of the AICPA’s proposed global credential, and raise valid, interesting questions about other areas, which we are still deliberating. One of the clearest findings in the New York survey was that an overwhelming number of respondents knew very little about the proposal. Also, the phrasing of certain survey questions may have unintentionally contributed to the confusion surrounding the proposed credential. For example, the question “Do you believe an additional credential would better define for the public the range of services CPAs currently provide?” is misleading: Defining the range of services CPAs provide falls to the AICPA image enhancement campaign, which will continue unabated, not to the proposed credential.

However, that two of every three CPAs responding to the NYSSCPA survey agreed that the services delivered by today’s CPA do not match the public perception of the profession underscores a premise underlying the new credential: The revolutionary changes taking place in the marketplace, fueled by rapid advances in technology and the new world economy, are dramatically altering the expectations of clients and employers.

The bottom line is that surveys of any kind cannot substitute for education and dialogue. Therefore, if the AICPA Council approves a membership ballot on the credential at its spring meeting, we’ll launch a comprehensive member education program about the credential, its administration, competency set, and potential market value.

AICPA research has shown that more than 75% of our members recognize the value in a complementary global credential and generally support the concept—regardless of whether they would personally seek it.

One in five of the NYSSCPA survey respondents said they would like to add a broader global credential to their portfolio—compared to only one in four of those contacted in national surveys—both extremely positive figures in marketing terms. When 18–20% of survey respondents find a concept very appealing, researchers conclude that the venture has a high probability of success.

Clearly, not every CPA will need this new credential. But can we afford to shut the door for those who do? Many CPAs apparently believe that they owe it to the profession—and to the generations of CPAs who will follow—to open this gateway of opportunity.

Use what already exists for the betterment of the profession
Frank C. Minter, CPA, president, Institute of Management Accountants

Although we all recognize that the CPA credential no longer describes the work that most of its holders perform, CPAs do not want to see its undeniable prestige diminished. So I’m not surprised that the NYSSCPA’s survey results indicate that a significant majority believes that the AICPA’s proposed global credential is unnecessary and they would not seek it.

Since the AICPA’s original announcement of the proposed credential, the Institute of Management Accountants’ (IMA) position has been similar—that the need is not apparent. Over the past six years, the IMA, in cooperation with the AICPA and Financial Executives International (FEI), has published three research studies that report on the knowledge, skills, and abilities that corporate America expects from and requires of entry-level professionals, and we work closely with the academic community to ensure that course content includes that same body of knowledge. The IMA itself offers two certification exams—Certified Management Accountant (CMA) and Certified in Financial Management (CFM)—that test competencies based on those same expectations and requirements. These exams are offered in more than 90 locations outside the United States; in fact, most of IMA’s international growth is in the certification area. More than 150 corporations actively recommend and support CMA or CFM certification for their finance professionals.

Representatives of the AICPA and IMA have met, and IMA has proposed working together to establish an entry-level credential that is broad, global, and unregulated, much as the CMA and CFM are today. Beyond that base credential would be exam-based specialty credentials for more advanced competencies in the profession such as audit and attest, tax, financial planning, internal auditing, finance, information technology, governmental, and possibly others.

Our current discussions indicate the AICPA’s willingness to include other certifications such as the CMA and CFM under the global credential umbrella, but no willingness to waver from the current proposal for a global credential. The IMA continues to stress its desire to approach the subject open-mindedly, without preconceived plans, and to work together for what is best for everyone in our broad profession.

The CPA Journal is broadly recognized as an outstanding, technical-refereed publication aimed at public practitioners, management, educators, and other accounting professionals. It is edited by CPAs for CPAs. Our goal is to provide CPAs and other accounting professionals with the information and news to enable them to be successful accountants, managers, and executives in today's practice environments.