| Letters to the Editor |
|
This letter comes from PIS member, Tony Tinker, Baruch College. Dear Colleagues: At the recent Business meeting of the Section, the issue was raised about the Section supporting the CPA Conference. Some members at the meeting complained that there did not appear to be any formal application, or accountability for past support by the Section. Reprinted below is an email, dated May 8, 1998, sent to the then President of the Public Interest Section, Tim Fogarty, requesting Section support for the 1999 Critical Perspectives Conference. The email was sent after inquiries on my part, attempting to ascertain the kind of “accountability” the section would like for its funds. The letter sought to deal with these issues and ends by offering to provide Tim with any further information that he might require. In the light of the discussions that subsequently took place at the Section’s AGM, therefore, I deeply regret that this “Request for Funding” was never presented to the meeting (indeed, no mention of its existence was even made!). I hope that the reproduction of this original shows that a serious attempt was made, before the section AGM, to account for the Section’s support, and justify the request for continued support. I plan to be at San Diego to answer further questions from members. May 8, 1998 Dear Tim, Following earlier correspondence from David Cooper and Paul Williams, I am writing to “formally” request financial support from the Public Interest Section for the 1999 Critical Perspectives Conference. This will be our fifth meeting and the section has been a prominent sponsor in each one. Critical Perspectives is unique in being the only “progressive” journal with its editorial base in the (sometimes “inhospitable”) location of North American (sic). Nevertheless, from this vantage point, we have consistently supported section members in providing them with an intellectual community and a publication outlet. We can point with some pride to many public interest members whose promotion and tenure was due, in some small way, to their association with this journal. Indeed, by being “on the spot”, we have often been the first to identify new scholars and given them their “first break”. The 1999 conference will continue this productive liaison. What would financial support for the section be used for? First, we urgently need a graduate student to assist with the administration in the Fall 98 and Spring 99. (At CUNY rates, this amounts to around $18,000). If we have funds beyond this, we would like to offer doctoral students a reduction on the conference rate and assistance with other costs of attendance. I might add that I typically contribute an enormous amount of my own time in preparing for the meeting, and will continue to do so, but as the pace quickens, the administrative burden becomes very arduous (especially as my regular duties at Baruch, and for the journal, continue unabated). It is our policy that I receive no compensation whatsoever for this effort and this policy will continue to apply to the 1999 meeting. All funds are deposited into a state audited Baruch account, where the uses are strictly limited by university and state regulations. We budget each conference to break-even. In the past, small surpluses and deficits have been rolled over to the next meeting. We begin this meeting with a $4,000 balance, however in 1996, I paid a graduate assistant out of my own pocket and ran up an $11,000 deficit before revenues began to flow. The same pattern is expected for 1999. Against this background I hope you can see that the question of a “profit” is a little nebulous (as ever!). I hope this gives you enough to work with; please contact me if you require further information and do please look over the conference WEB site referenced below. Fraternally, Tony Tinker The following letter was submitted by Richard Vangermeersch, University of Rhode Island July 21, 1998 Dear Paul, While returning home after a research trip to Redding, Connecticut on Stuart Chase—an early CPA activist—I heard a “sound bite” on National Public Radio from President Clinton about accountants. It was nasty. I requested a full transcript from the White house so to analyze and verify the “sound bite.” President Clinton made this comment about accountants in “Remarks by the President on the Patient’s Bill of Rights” (p. 3) on May 28. “The bill says, you know, how can you let some person with the mentality of an accountant who will only see the number of what it costs to have somebody do her surgery, who will only see the number at the bottom line of what the chemotherapy costs, make a decision. We’re not that kind of people; we’re not that kind of society. And if we have to endure a smidgen more inflation, bring it on. That’s all this is about. (Applause)” I responded to the President that his comment furthered an unfortunate stereotype of accountants—heartless in a cold and uncaring manner. Also, accountants in an HMO do not make the final decision on provided services but that these decisions are political decisions made by other administrators. Accountants have done yeoman service to the nation in determining costs of each hospital function. This was done at the behest of the federal government. I’m requesting a formal response from the Public Interest Section of the AAA to President Clinton on his “mentality of an accountant” comment. It is important to inform and remind our society and our President that accountants are feeling and caring professionals. A formal response would also be an opportunity for educating the public and the President about accountants. Apparently, that education is much needed. (Editor’s note: No formal action by the Section was taken at the meeting in New Orleans. Interested persons should contact Richard for copies of his letter to the President and the White House reply.) |