Question:

 There is no plausible deniability with Enron.

Too soon to say.   Frankly, I find it almost impossible to find anyone connected with it who wasn’t at some level contributory. That includes, employees, investors, congress, accountants, financial community, SEC, Justice, the State folks, on and on…..

The ultimate, relevant, prevailing opinion will most likely be neither yours nor mine, but that of yet to be selected jurors. I am totally convinced that genuine diligence on the part of honest people is essential to keeping fraud and abuse down to a tolerable level.  We cannot rely totally on government and whatever harsh penalties that government might choose to impose. If people are, it still is only going to work up to a point.  It isn’t going to stop everyone from slipping through.  

The only way to stop them all is to stop the economy, clearly not an acceptable alternative.  I’m pushing to keep it down to a tolerable level. A repairman would be someone who could fix the problem.  None of you did, can, or will.  I can’t play the fiddle either.  There is no one on this forum who in anyway, shape or form has, is, or will become an agent of change.  We are all actors, not playwrights or directors.

Public opinion will be the agent of change if there is to be change.  We all contribute – some more – some less. We can no more fix the problems that cause Enrons than we can control the weather.

Hopefully we can disagree agreeably. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

… If you are familiar with "plausible deniability" you will also know that it is extremely difficult to get the real perps.  It is easy enough to put away a few disposable designated perps, but the person or persons who are truly abusing us generally go free because they are smart enough to insulate themselves and to take advantage of the safeguards in our legal system.

Plausible deniability only works when people let it work.  There is no plausible deniability with Enron.  Frankly, I find it almost impossible to find anyone connected with it who wasn’t at some level contributory. That includes, employees, investors, congress, accountants, financial community, SEC, Justice, the State folks, on and on….. I am totally convinced that genuine diligence on the part of honest people is essential to keeping fraud and abuse down to a tolerable level.  We cannot rely totally on government and whatever harsh penalties that government might choose to impose.

If people are, it still is only going to work up to a point.  It isn’t going to stop everyone from slipping through.  There is only one Enron this year, in another decade there will be another one.  Anyone who sez he can put forward a 100% solution is selling horse sweat… That is not to say that I don’t advocate harsh penalties, because I do advocate harsh penalties where appropriate.  I also know that I need to be diligent on my own behalf.

Harsh penalties.  Ha  The last person to be quickly executed for murder was Timothy McVey.  ONLY because he killed a half dozen Federal Police Officers (not the civilians in the building, almost no one gets the rope for killing civilians) and only because he wouldn’t let his lawyers defend him.  Didn’t Gebhart have his wife on the payroll for nothing? Oh, so sorry, bookkeeping mistake, by gones…… The current U.S. is not the land of harsh penalties or even ones that fit the crime, if you can get anyone convicted of anything.  Heck, the State has been trying to execute Steve Anderson for twenty years! Believe it or not, I largely agree with your comment about the Enron failure and the audit failure behind it being little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world; a symptom of something that has gone very wrong.  What I vehemently disagree with is your statement that "it probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available".  I’m a repairman.  Meyers is a repairman.  Zollars is a repairman.  Many of the other regulars here are repairmen, as are many of the irregulars and lurkers.  You could also be a repairman if you chose to be.

A repairman would be someone who could fix the problem.  None of you did, can, or will.  I can’t play the fiddle either.  There is no one on this forum who in anyway, shape or form has, is, or will become an agent of change.  We are all actors, not playwrights or directors. I said it before and I say it aging, the next century is not going to be an American century.  We no longer have what it takes and what little we have is dissipating.  Are culture has been under steady attack for the last hundred and it is worn out.  We can no more fix the problems that cause Enrons than we can control the weather. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

IMHO we should bear in mind what "behavioral finance" confirms: The sense of justice and the perception of working in a reasonably just social and political environment with "level playing fields" are very highly motivating factors in respect of economic productivity. Insisting of compliance with basic ethical tenets, which BTW are remarkably similar in most cultures, contributes directly to the economic well-being of our fellow humans and our "goodselves". A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Soviet jihad explosion Panama bomb strategic Serbian kibo North Korea

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Familiar with that, the big plan, critical theory, progressive thought, how the world really works, how politics functions, some of the real motives people have, history, what doesn’t work, why the grand plan doesn’t work, and on and on…… In one sense audit has been broken a long time.  In a larger sense it really doesn’t matter that much.  The Enron failure and the audit failure behind it really are not much in the grand scheme of things. The economic impact is little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world.  It is a symptom of something that has gone very wrong and probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available. In a similar note, the 9/11 sneak attack really didn’t have a measurable effect on the economy.  The huge Clinton tax increase of eight or so years ago and all the anti commerce administrative rules and regulations sunk the expansion. …. Ron, Are you familiar with "plausible deniability"?

If you are familiar with "plausible deniability" you will also know that it is extremely difficult to get the real perps.  It is easy enough to put away a few disposable designated perps, but the person or persons who are truly abusing us generally go free because they are smart enough to insulate themselves and to take advantage of the safeguards in our legal system. I am totally convinced that genuine diligence on the part of honest people is essential to keeping fraud and abuse down to a tolerable level.  We cannot rely totally on government and whatever harsh penalties that government might choose to impose.   That is not to say that I don’t advocate harsh penalties, because I do advocate harsh penalties where appropriate.  I also know that I need to be diligent on my own behalf. Believe it or not, I largely agree with your comment about the Enron failure and the audit failure behind it being little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world; a symptom of something that has gone very wrong.  What I vehemently disagree with is your statement that "it probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available".  I’m a repairman.  Meyers is a repairman.  Zollars is a repairman.  Many of the other regulars here are repairmen, as are many of the irregulars and lurkers.  You could also be a repairman if you chose to be. My nine-month-old grandchild is upstairs playing with her grandmother as I write this.  I owe it to her to give this the best shot I can.  If this problem is not resolved, and soon, there will be no USA as we know it by the time she is my age. Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com Washington, USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I did read it and thought very little of it. A system should be setup…. The Exchange should hire the auditors….. Yep, I see what he is doing.  The SEC will need to more closely regulate the Exchange to assure that the audits are carefully done and on and on.. It opens the door, for the end of independent accountancy in the world. On the other hand, maybe the independent accountants no longer have enough ethical and moral capital to do the job.  Maybe the level of rot has passed the point of no return.  Of course all this happened under Levit’s SEC, where all the legally required forms were filed by the I said it before and I will say it again.  If anyone was really serious about cleaning this situation up you would see twenty-five year disbarments from practice before the SEC being handed out.  I haven’t heard anyone mention that.  (If twenty-five doesn’t work, then life time disbarments, bar them from tax work too.)

Ron, Are you familiar with "plausible deniability"? — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Familiar with that, the big plan, critical theory, progressive thought, how the world really works, how politics functions, some of the real motives people have, history, what doesn’t work, why the grand plan doesn’t work, and on and on…… In one sense audit has been broken a long time.  In a larger sense it really doesn’t matter that much.  The Enron failure and the audit failure behind it really are not much in the grand scheme of things. The economic impact is little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world.  It is a symptom of something that has gone very wrong and probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available. In a similar note, the 9/11 sneak attack really didn’t have a measurable effect on the economy.  The huge Clinton tax increase of eight or so years ago and all the anti commerce administrative rules and regulations sunk the expansion.

… Ron, Are you familiar with "plausible deniability"?

… — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

I wonder whether the AICPA has any liability from the standpoint that it is supposed to "police" the profession.

Who says the AICPA polices the profession. For what it’s worth, the AICPA doesn’t even seem capable of policing its own membership. Hypothetically, if it didn’t act or act timely or with appropriate action for the offender and the firm/individual did something similar—one could always sue —  but seems like one could find a nexus.

Try posting this question on misc.legal.moderated. Regards, Bill

Response:

I wonder whether the AICPA has any liability from the standpoint that it is supposed to "police" the profession. Hypothetically, if it didn’t act or act timely or with appropriate action for the offender and the firm/individual did something similar—one could always sue —  but seems like one could find a nexus. Jim E.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I did read it and thought very little of it. A system should be setup…. The Exchange should hire the auditors….. Yep, I see what he is doing.  The SEC will need to more closely regulate the Exchange to assure that the audits are carefully done and on and on.. It opens the door, for the end of independent accountancy in the world. On the other hand, maybe the independent accountants no longer have enough ethical and moral capital to do the job.  Maybe the level of rot has passed the point of no return.  Of course all this happened under Levit’s SEC, where all the legally required forms were filed by the I said it before and I will say it again.  If anyone was really serious about cleaning this situation up you would see twenty-five year disbarments from practice before the SEC being handed out.  I haven’t heard anyone mention that.  (If twenty-five doesn’t work, then life time disbarments, bar them from tax work too.) Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. Did you even read the article Ron. … — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Yes, I did read it and thought very little of it. A system should be setup…. The Exchange should hire the auditors….. Yep, I see what he is doing.  The SEC will need to more closely regulate the Exchange to assure that the audits are carefully done and on and on.. It opens the door, for the end of independent accountancy in the world. On the other hand, maybe the independent accountants no longer have enough ethical and moral capital to do the job.  Maybe the level of rot has passed the point of no return.  Of course all this happened under Levit’s SEC, where all the legally required forms were filed by the I said it before and I will say it again.  If anyone was really serious about cleaning this situation up you would see twenty-five year disbarments from practice before the SEC being handed out.  I haven’t heard anyone mention that.  (If twenty-five doesn’t work, then life time disbarments, bar them from tax work too.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. Did you even read the article Ron.  

… — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Right you are, Jim. What can we do to support Dave aside from sending him a nice email? (Done.)

Keep beating the drum.  Quote from his article.  Forward the URL to any European publications you know to be following this story. Here we have an "insider" speaking out and telling it like it is.  In my opinion that is truly significant. It is highly likely that this guy will be viciously trashed within the "In" crowd.  Support from us could mean a lot more to him than we have any way of knowing. I’m not presently a member of the AICPA.  If a guy like Cotton were to make a serious attempt to capture one of the top offices I would strongly consider joining so I could vote for him. In my opinion, this sort of effort from the "grass roots" is our best hope to restore the prestige of what was once a fine profession. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. CPAs (and I’m One) Can Reverse Their Losses

… — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first.

Did you even read the article Ron.  Dave Cotton is certainly not advocating a government solution.  Quite the opposite. In his third paragraph Dave states that, "We can restore trust in the CPA profession, and there are two ways to do that with minimal government intervention, red tape and regulation. One is to make accounting firms work directly for the people with the most to lose — investors. Let’s set up a system by which the stock exchanges would use a competitive process to select CPA firms to audit the financial statements of companies whose stock is traded on their exchanges. That would take auditors off the payroll of the firms they’re supposed to be monitoring." The first sentence of his fourth paragraph starts with, "Another measure would be to beef up the strength of the accounting industry’s ethics review panel." How do you get "another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government" out of that? — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Looks like "good" thinking.  But of course it’s just a start.  You have the problem of the CPA not being paid by the client.  Now he doesn’t want to cooperate as fully.  Or this client is in better condition than another. Who decides how to allocate costs, which I suspect will some way find its way back to the firm audited.  It wouldn’t be fair to charge costs equally — no firm is alike.  But those are all problems that can be dealt with if one gets a buy in on the concept of  working for the investors, at least with a middleman involved.  As I said, somehow, the costs have to get back to the client.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. Did you even read the article Ron.  Dave Cotton is certainly not advocating a government solution.  Quite the opposite. In his third paragraph Dave states that, "We can restore trust in the CPA profession, and there are two ways to do that with minimal government intervention, red tape and regulation. One is to make accounting firms work directly for the people with the most to lose — investors. Let’s set up a system by which the stock exchanges would use a competitive process to select CPA firms to audit the financial statements of companies whose stock is traded on their exchanges. That would take auditors off the payroll of the firms they’re supposed to be monitoring." The first sentence of his fourth paragraph starts with, "Another measure would be to beef up the strength of the accounting industry’s ethics review panel." How do you get "another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government" out of that? — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com

Response:

CPAs (and I’m One) Can Reverse Their Losses [Outlook] The Post’s opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday. By Dave Cotton Sunday, January 27, 2002; Page B01 Last year, a public opinion survey put certified public accountants solidly in the middle of a short list of most-trusted professionals. Thanks to Enron Corp. and Arthur Andersen LLP, we CPAs might be lucky to outrank journalists, lawyers or used-car salesmen in the next survey. <snip Unfortunately, the plan announced Jan. 17 by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt and my own organization, the AICPA, is a collection of cosmetic half-measures. Setting up an autonomous body to oversee ethics enforcement, discipline and SEC practice-monitoring processes is not a bad idea, but it does not address the root causes of the Enron debacle. <big snip of excellent material – must read Dave Cotton is a partner with Cotton & Company LLP, an auditing firm in Alexandria, and a member of the AICPA’s Professional Ethics Committee’s Technical Standards Subcommittee. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the AICPA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41302-2002Jan26.html The above is "must read" stuff.  I find this article extraordinary in that is written by CPA member of the AICPA’s Professional Ethics Committee and published in The Washington Post. For those of you who would like to send Dave an atta-boy, his email is — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Right you are, Jim. What can we do to support Dave aside from sending him a nice email? (Done.) A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Semtex fissionable NORAD quiche FBI Honduras supercomputer cracking bomb

Response:

Question:

This thread makes me think that the Securities and Exchange Commission is on the right track when it says that a firm can not be the auditor for a company which is suing them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found no definition of "conflict of interest" in the definition sections of the rules or legisation Wa State. Generally, you’d look to case law if neither the Code nor the regulations define that term. But, more to the point–setting fees *always* involves a conflict of interest, at least to the extent that it’s in the CPA’s interest to get the highest possible fee, paid the most promptly, while it’s generally in the client’s interest to be charged the lowest possible fee, with repayment terms that would let him/her postpone payment indefinitely.  I would say a more reasonable view of conflicts in the Washington provisions would involve conflicts of interest related to the *professional* service engaged to perform. Also, ethical problems related to many "conflicts of interest" can be erased with sufficient disclosure.  Jackee’s later posts indicate such was the case here.  

Response:

Amazing how things work out.  Ethics are about fairness – not convience.

I agree–and it seems the principal complaint was that it would be "inconvenient" for her to lose the services of this accountant.  I don’t see that as an ethical issue, but rather one of the consequences of hiring related parties to perform services for you–if you dismiss one (or have a serious disagreement with one), it’s likely to "spill over" and taint the relationship with the other.  At least in my business, if I had a serious dispute with a contractor (so serious that I’m withholding payment and the contractor has filed a formal lien–so it looks like we’re heading to court), I would probably assume that I should probably look for someone else to perform any services I had previously received from the contractor’s spouse.

Response:

Also, ethical problems related to many "conflicts of interest" can be erased with sufficient disclosure. Problems with formal codes of ethics, perhaps, may be "erased."

I’m talking about relationships with people, not formal codes. Situations come along from time to time for which there are no clear cut answers.  I like to lay out the facts to those involved and get their input.  While I generally know when something has the potential of actually influencing my judgment, I have no way of knowing how someone else might see it unless I disclose and discuss. However, formal codes of ethics represent a MINIMUM standard only. In other words, compliance the with formal rules is NOT sufficient to make anyone ethical. easy2000

– Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Now see, lurkers. Ed is nice. I on the other hand often let my BS intolerance show. easy200

Response:

Also, ethical problems related to many "conflicts of interest" can be erased with sufficient disclosure.  

Problems with formal codes of ethics, perhaps, may be "erased." However, formal codes of ethics represent a MINIMUM standard only. In other words, compliance the with formal rules is NOT sufficient to make anyone ethical. easy2000

Response:

As I understand it, you are saying the the CPA in this situation should recuse herself in writing in a timely manner, and not provide any service to jackee. Interestingly enough, based on Jackee’s comments, I’m not sure she would see this as a more acceptable alternative.

Amazing how things work out.  Ethics are about fairness – not convience. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Accountants, Lawyers and the like have an agency relationship with there clients.  They must act in the best interest of their clients, subject to the law and their own professional code.  She may not be in violation of her professional code or she may be but she still has an ethics problem. Actually, the above is clearly not true for accountants in all situations. Actually it is true in all situations.

Actually, you don’t understand to whom a CPA serving as the outside auditor has a duty. If you did, you wouldn’t prattle on the way you do. easy2000

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found no definition of "conflict of interest" in the definition sections of the rules or legisation Wa State. Generally, you’d look to case law if neither the Code nor the regulations define that term. But, more to the point–setting fees *always* involves a conflict of interest, at least to the extent that it’s in the CPA’s interest to get the highest possible fee, paid the most promptly, while it’s generally in the client’s interest to be charged the lowest possible fee, with repayment terms that would let him/her postpone payment indefinitely.  I would say a more reasonable view of conflicts in the Washington provisions would involve conflicts of interest related to the *professional* service engaged to perform.

Also, ethical problems related to many "conflicts of interest" can be erased with sufficient disclosure.  Jackee’s later posts indicate such was the case here.   — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

As I understand it, you are saying the the CPA in this situation should recuse herself in writing in a timely manner, and not provide any service to jackee.

Interestingly enough, based on Jackee’s comments, I’m not sure she would see this as a more acceptable alternative.

Response:

Actually it is true in all situations.

Clearly it is not, as I’ll outline below.  Understanding this point is crucial to understanding the nature of independence as it is contained in the professional standards, as well as when it must be applied and when it is actually *against* professional standards to practice it. May I say the controversy involving independence and CPAs on the public company level has arisen not because anyone is concerned that the CPAs in question weren’t acting in the "best interests" of their client (the implication is that this was exactly what the auditor was doing). There is no argument that the "insiders" in a public company are the client. The audit of public companies is law. It is done by order of law to check and enforce the data that the "insiders" produce.

Of course, you are assuming an audit only exists for a public company. Many audits take place that are not required by law.  It may be a contractual requirement, a company may just "like it" to show to anyone they might decide to show it to in the future, or it may be the board of directors just deciding it’s a good idea to protect themselves.  No matter *why* the audit is being conducted, though, the standards of independence do not change. Second, even for audits required by law, there is no question the client is the organization in question–it is the contracting body.   Accounting, business and business relationships, follow the "going concern principle".  Changes in that continuation need to be based on the substance of that relationship. That is not the case based on the information supplied nor is it the case on the information implied.

Umm–going concern is a GAAP term of art.  Assuming that’s not what you mean, then I assume you are saying that businesses are prohibited from changing the terms of their relationships at any point in time.  Following that logic, it would appear the *client* would also be prohibited from firing the accountant (that changes the nature of the relationship).  Since I would hope this person could terminate the services of this accountant, I certainly wouldn’t want to go to that extreme. The nature and terms of payment obligations are generally set on a "per service" or "per engagement" basis.  Now, if the accountant had accepted the work and a month later suddenly imposes the demand for prepayment, then I suspect you have an argument that there was an *implied* contract that used the same terms as previously.  However, if the accountant immediately informed the client upon receipt of the new engagement of the new terms, then I don’t see a problem. After all, Texaco is going to inform me tonight of the price of gasoline per gallon when I pull into their station and go to the pump.  I do not have a right to demand they sell me gasoline at the same price they charged me last time.  Nor can I demand that they accept the exact credit cards they did the last time I was there.  They set the terms of the offer–and I have the ability to refuse to enter into this transaction. There can be no "secret commissions" side deals or gain from that relationship even if the gain is not at the "expense" of the principal.

I don’t really think that is at issue here.  And given the controversy over in the CFP arena about required disclosure of compensation mechanisms, I would suggest that a number of professionals applying "special expertise" do not necessarily practice such full disclosure.  Nor, apparently, does the law require them to do so. "We have been doing business for about ten years. The billing has always been  sent by mail and we paid sometimes in increments other times in full. " The "ten year statement" indicates a satisfactory relationship.

The ten year statement indicates a continuing relationship, not necessarily a satisfactory one.  Certainly I would suggest it’s not satisfactory to Jackee at this time, even though she has continued that relationship. The "I have submitted my tax work to her last year and she has since made demands that I pay in advance" indicates that the data was delivered to the accountant and when she the accountant had that data she then decided to change a ten year practice and demand payment in full up front.

Which leaves open the question of whether the accountant "held the records hostage" (which is a clear violation of professional ethics as well as introducing a very likely legal liability outside of those ethics) or whether the records arrived on the doorstep without any prior conversation about the payment terms for the current year and the accountant offered to allow Jackee to pick up her records and go elsewhere.  Nothing has been said *either way* about the exact circumstance there–and that exact circumstance is crucial to the issue of whether the accountant has violated a legal or professional obligation to the client (because it goes to the issue essentially of whether Jackee *was* a client for this engagement before accepting the advance payment term). I agree that again that we only have one side of the story but the indication is that Jackee is only guilty of wanting to continue a satisfactory ten year relationship. We do not know all the reasons for accountant’s actions but I am not about to make an argument about ethics about a case based on the assumption that information is distorted.

I don’t ask you to make that assumption.  Rather, though, I would suggest that you cannot make any judgment on that issue because the facts, as stated in the original post, do not contain sufficient detail to make the call even if I grant every statement Jackee made as completely true. Second, even then we have to understand that since we do not have independent corroboration of Jackee’s story, at best all we can say is that *if* the situation is as described *then* there is a problem. But, as I’ve noted, I think the most crucial fact (whether the books were held hostage) has been omitted.  In a later response, Jackee indicated that the problem was that it would have been a problem to change accountants since others would be more costly–but didn’t indicate that her previous accountant had done anything to prevent her from changing (unless you call undercharging a client a way to prevent them from changing <grin). Even if the information is not complete it is the responsibility of a professional to be professional. Even if the professional has a client who is a "jerk" (no indication in this case and the ten year fact indicates that)(that indication goes for both parties till now) the professional must act in a responsible manner.

The professional may have acted responsibly.  As I noted, the key question arises on whether she immediately informed Jackee of the change in the terms she would agree to work under when Jackee attempted to use her services for another year and whether she indicated that she would not grant Jackee back her records so she could go somewhere else.  She doesn’t have to work for Jackee, nor does she have to work for Jackee under payment terms and conditions that never change.  What she must avoid, however, is to leave Jackee no choice but to use her services because she is preventing Jackee from going to another accountant. Client delivers data to accountant for tax work just like she has for ten years. Accountant is wife of third party in dispute with client. Dispute involves money withheld for "allegedly" shoddy work. Accountant takes data and then demands payment in full upfront.

Well, takes data is not a fact that has been proven.  At best we know that the data was delivered to the accountant–that may have been by Jackee personally, or it may have been by a delivery service (USPS, UPS, private messenger, etc.).   Has this accountant a conflict of interest? Should a profession act in a professional manner and be able to recognize a possable conflict of interest? Should an accountant accept work from a party with which they have a conflict of interest?

I think the best thing for the accountant to have done would have been to have simply fired the client.  From experience with accountants in general, I suspect that was what she was trying to do indirectly by changing the terms of the agreement–a way to avoid officially telling the client "you’re fired" but hoping they get the hint.  Not a very good way to operate, but it’s the way a lot of professionals do (raise the fees until the problem goes away). Even without "The Rest of the Story" I conclude that when the dispute arose between the family member and the client, the accountant had a duty to inform the client of her conflict and that she could not act for the client while that conflict existed. Such action could be verbal but for proposes of her own due diligence should also be in writing.  It should be TIMELY and there should be no acrimony in the action, even if the accountant felt bitter or betrayed.

Well, one problem you have is that because the conflict was known to both parties, the client would have a tough time arguing they were unaware of that conflict when they offered to renew the relationship for another year. That doesn’t come down to any special professional knowledge–rather, it comes down to a level of knowledge we should assume all consumers would have (if you are in a dispute with someone’s spouse, that may affect the way that this person will deal with you).  Both parties can agree to continue their own relationship despite the conflict, but there needs to be mutual agreement. Without that letter or some proof of information the accountant must be deemed to have acted in an unprofessional manner and may leave herself (or all accountants E&O) liable for any costs that result from the fiasco. The burden of responsable action lies with us, the professional.

Not really.  The burden lies with both

… read more »

Response:

I found no definition of "conflict of interest" in the definition sections of the rules or legisation Wa State.

Generally, you’d look to case law if neither the Code nor the regulations define that term.   But, more to the point–setting fees *always* involves a conflict of interest, at least to the extent that it’s in the CPA’s interest to get the highest possible fee, paid the most promptly, while it’s generally in the client’s interest to be charged the lowest possible fee, with repayment terms that would let him/her postpone payment indefinitely.  I would say a more reasonable view of conflicts in the Washington provisions would involve conflicts of interest related to the *professional* service engaged to perform.

Response:

As of this day I have paid all her demands and will pay all penalties (if any). This is more economical than retaining another. I’m sure this is recognized by my acct. My next acct. will be much more trustworthy and responsible. I have since upgraded my pc and enlisted the services of "Quicken". I don’t really see *why* you would have done what you did.

It’s simpler and more economical…..This can be argued endlessly but, it takes two to argue. I don’t want to take this on and run a business. The only way I see that she could have had you over a barrell is if you had waited until the last minute (meaning nearly the extended due date) to bring her your information–

I was informed by her new prot

Question:

Wouldn’t be from Sydney would we? Jake

Response:

<snipped They do not need Accountants in Melbourne. The People have no money and all the companies are foreign and have their Accunts done off-shore. PEM

What do they do off shore?  :-)) Oh … you are soooooooooooooooo rude!

Response:

Does anybody know anything about KNP Chartered Accountants in Melbourne? There don’t appear to be any web-based resources for this company. Aren’t they in the 21st Century yet? They do not need Accountants in Melbourne. The People have no money and all the companies are foreign and have their Accunts done off-shore.

Oh, thanks, I was worried that I wouldn’t get a serious answer.

Response:

 Does anybody know anything about KNP Chartered Accountants in Melbourne? I’m certain that KNP Chartered Accountants would.

There don’t appear to be any web-based resources for this company. You don’t appear to have a proper handle on the Queen’s English.

Aren’t they in the 21st Century yet? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have you even reached the 20th century? Use a friggin’ telephone!

Response:

Does anybody know anything about KNP Chartered Accountants in Melbourne? I’m certain that KNP Chartered Accountants would.

But would they tell me everything they know? Do you understand the concept of research? There don’t appear to be any web-based resources for this company. You don’t appear to have a proper handle on the Queen’s English.

Interesting…what, specifically, has led you to this hypothesis? Are you sure you aren’t merely an idiot in disguise? Aren’t they in the 21st Century yet? Have you even reached the 20th century? Use a friggin’ telephone!

Why should I do that when I am already in the 21st Century and waiting for retards like yourself to catch up?

Response:

Does anybody know anything about KNP Chartered Accountants in Melbourne? There don’t appear to be any web-based resources for this company. Aren’t they in the 21st Century yet?

Response:

Does anybody know anything about KNP Chartered Accountants in Melbourne? There don’t appear to be any web-based resources for this company. Aren’t they in the 21st Century yet?

They do not need Accountants in Melbourne. The People have no money and all the companies are foreign and have their Accunts done off-shore. PEM

Response:

Question:

Of course its warming up and has been since the end of the last Ice age. Think about it,  if it hadn’t warmed up we’d be up to our asses in Ice….. Pete – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know a little about research.  But that’s not the point.  I think top atmospheric scientists know a lot about research.  And I think they did there homework in this subject.  I think Rush Limbaugh knows nothing about research. And I think you are just parroting what he says.  Some people will cling to their old ideas about global warming forever and refuse to take into consideration any amount of scientific research that contradicts their dogma.  I think you are one of them. you don’t know much about research do you? Let’s see now.  A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat.  Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock.  I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

And what is it that you know about research that would invalidate the conclusion of these 11 scientists? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you don’t know much about research do you? Let’s see now.  A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat.  Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock.  I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

Some people are just plain hard headed.  5 years ago the scientific evidence on global warming was mixed.  It was hard to draw an objective conclusion. Since then the evidence in support of global waming’s reality has been steadily growing.  The number of scientists that believe it is a real threat far outnumbers the ones who don’t.  More data has been collected and more measurements have been taken and the preponderance of evidence shows that global warming is in fact mainly caused by human activity.  This announcement by Bush’s panel of scientists is only getting a lot of attention because the Bush administration has incorrectly maintained global warming is unsubstantiated.  And now they have to reverse their stand. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s see.  Another tough decision.  A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock.  My my.  A very difficult decision. When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers.  Daly went after the facts.  Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go:  http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut,  but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric

Response:

Let’s see.  Another tough decision.  A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock.  My my.  A very difficult decision. When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers.

Actually, Eric, it’s more like–"we can’t believe you are still pushin your ideas, after such research has been done".  Of course, there’s always that .05% of a chance that you are actually right!  :-)  I’d say stick to your guns, Eric.  You can’t make more of a fool out of yourself than you already have—right?                             Jerry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Daly went after the facts.  Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go:  http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut,  but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric

Response:

I know a little about research.  But that’s not the point.  I think top atmospheric scientists know a lot about research.  And I think they did there homework in this subject.  I think Rush Limbaugh knows nothing about research. And I think you are just parroting what he says.  Some people will cling to their old ideas about global warming forever and refuse to take into consideration any amount of scientific research that contradicts their dogma.  I think you are one of them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you don’t know much about research do you? Let’s see now.  A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat.  Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock.  I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

I think the panel of 11 scientists produced the facts quite nicely.  Since they are considered  top atmospheric scientists and I am not, I trust they have done their homework.  This Daly character is only a right wing columnist.  He’s not a scientist.  He only went after the facts that fit his beliefs and ignored the mountain of evidence to the contrary.  He started from a conclusion and worked backwards, accepting only the evidence that supported his conclusion.  Real scientists start with the facts and let the facts lead them to a conclusion.  His prejudice has clouded his vision to the point where he will no longer accept any amount of scientific data that does not fit his view of the world.  He’s an airbag just like your idol Rush Limbaugh who wrote books that are so full of misinformation they could fill a library. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s see.  Another tough decision.  A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock.  My my.  A very difficult decision. When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers.  Daly went after the facts.  Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go:  http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut,  but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric

Response:

you don’t know much about research do you? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s see now.  A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat.  Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock.  I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

*y a w n*…… did you say something?   no, I didn’t think so. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Keyton, the king of mindless dittoheads. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! a rebuke from you the KING of all fools?…. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! \ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie

Response:

\ Let’s see.  Another tough decision.  A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock.  My my.  A very difficult decision.\

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

Response:

Let’s see.  Another tough decision.  A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock.  My my.  A very difficult decision.

When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers.  Daly went after the facts.  Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go:  http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut,  but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric

Response:

Eric, Eric, Eric, don’t you feel at least a little alone on this subject by now?  Until the sun burns out, there will be reports disputing everything on                      Jerry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science"

Response:

What a pathetic opinion piece.  Every time the results of a new scientific study are released there is always a small number of die hards who reject it out of hand and cling to their old beliefs.  It’s the old  "it doesn’t fit my mindset" syndrome.  You can find it all through out history.  There are still people who believe that the earth is flat.  And a large number of people are convinced that the earth is only 10,000 years old.  No matter how much scientific data is presented, no matter how many eminent scientists have reached the same conclusion there will always be those who bury their head in the sand and refuse to accept new concepts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science" Today, radical environmentalists will be celebrating.  The U.S. National Academy of Science (a somewhat devalued title by now) has just released a report by a selected committee of climatologists who were commissioned by President Bush to provide an independent U.S. assessment of the current state of climate science. While many in the climate community hoped for a more balanced or critical approach to the IPCC, the National Assessment, and an earlier report by an NAS panel on the surface-satellite conflict, all we got today was a 100% endorsement of the IPCC and its processes, including the infamous `Summary for Policymakers’, full endorsement for the discredited `National Assessment’ (which even most climatologists could not stomach) , and full endorsement for the earlier NAS report on surface-satellite temperatures conflict. This report contained no new science, no new evidence, and most critically – it did not address in any detail a single point of contention raised by global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest report are: "Temperatures are in fact rising" Only according to the surface record, mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows little or no warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate today little different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the committee’s support for the surface record – no reason given. "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this remark, the committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record outright, with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no strong warming `within the past twenty years’, the committee clearly have given 100% blessing to the disputed surface record – without so much as a reason to justify that choice. "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1)scientific report." So they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to raise a single point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is hardly surprising as several committee members were themselves involved in the IPCC process. "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG 1) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary." The IPCC summary was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those research activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS committee should find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically pro-IPCC with no scientific justification offered.  They gave no reasons for the selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research studies, but ignoring others. "After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report." Again no discussion of the numerous points of difference between the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics.  The SPM and TS are clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again resorts to endorsement without justification. On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed – "The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little is known about these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any fault with models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from over-heating their virtual earths beyond existing real climate.  Those aerosols are used in the models like an accountants `balancing item’ in a balance sheet, and are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some kind of agreement with current climate.  The committee should have been more detailed on this issue, given their admission that little is known about the effect of aerosols in the real world. On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims to be small (+0.3 w/m2) , they dismiss the well published secondary feedback effects of solar forcing – "Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has convincing observational support." With these dismissive words, the entire body of published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last ten years is thrown out – without so much as an explanation. On the `National Assessment’ – "The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and health, provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change." The  National Assessment has been one of the most criticised climate documents of recent times.  It was attacked not merely by global warming sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC and the global warming scenario.  It was a manifestly political and alarmist document and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the National Assessment. More shame to them for doing so. On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not agree as to recent warming trends – "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee put themselves squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science.  Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites measuring the free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface record, this lack of understanding did not compel them to question the validity of the models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced greenhouse must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms.  What has been observed is quite the reverse.  From this, it requires no great leap of thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a completely false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or both. Either way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having endorsed the surface record again without explanation, they could only pass off this fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given above. In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of which they chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their view’ – as if their mere authority as representing the National Academy of Science were enough to prevail in the argument. Well it isn’t.  The days when mere `authority’ could win an argument or debate are long gone.  Such deference is more characteristic of a medieval priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must be justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern world, and this committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already been stated in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National Assessment. For that reason, the National Academy of `Science’ hardly deserve their name any more." (John L Daly, Still Waiting For Greenhouse)

Response:

A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem. "In a much-anticipated report from the National Academy of Sciences, 11 leading               atmospheric scientists, including previous skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed               the mainstream scientific view that the earth’s atmosphere was getting warmer and that human activity was largely responsible. "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said. "Temperatures are, in fact, rising."  Panel Tells Bush Global Warming Is Getting Worse

Response:

A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem.

  And you know that, deep down, George still doesn’t believe it.

Response:

A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem.   And you know that, deep down, George still doesn’t believe it.

He’ll ask for a recount and, if the result is the same, a new election ( errr … panel).

Response:

A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem.   And you know that, deep down, George still doesn’t believe it. He’ll ask for a recount and, if the result is the same, a new election ( errr … panel).

Seems to me that would be a GORE trick… Ruger9

Response:

Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

\ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie

Response:

a rebuke from you the KING of all fools?…. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – \ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie

Response:

I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff

I certainly still have a lot of skepticism about it. Just looking at the graphs (at http://www.solcomhouse.com/nagw.htm), there is obviously an upward trend.  But then if you look at the  numbers at the side of graphs, you realize that there is something "fishy" there.  You can make it look bad just by changing the scales of the graph.  If you plotted the same graph using absolute temperatures, all you’d see is a flat line. I’ll start to believe it more when I see the Democrats and Republicans (and environmental groups) getting worried about US population doubling or quadrupling in the next couple of decades.  Certainly the US isn’t going to be able to do much about it’s C-O2 emissions, when we have twice or four times as many people running around many more autos and SUV, etc. JW

Response:

NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science" Today, radical environmentalists will be celebrating.  The U.S. National Academy of Science (a somewhat devalued title by now) has just released a report by a selected committee of climatologists who were commissioned by President Bush to provide an independent U.S. assessment of the current state of climate science. While many in the climate community hoped for a more balanced or critical approach to the IPCC, the National Assessment, and an earlier report by an NAS panel on the surface-satellite conflict, all we got today was a 100% endorsement of the IPCC and its processes, including the infamous `Summary for Policymakers’, full endorsement for the discredited `National Assessment’ (which even most climatologists could not stomach) , and full endorsement for the earlier NAS report on surface-satellite temperatures conflict. This report contained no new science, no new evidence, and most critically – it did not address in any detail a single point of contention raised by global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest report are: "Temperatures are in fact rising" Only according to the surface record, mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows little or no warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate today little different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the committee’s support for the surface record – no reason given. "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this remark, the committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record outright, with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no strong warming `within the past twenty years’, the committee clearly have given 100% blessing to the disputed surface record – without so much as a reason to justify that choice. "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1)scientific report." So they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to raise a single point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is hardly surprising as several committee members were themselves involved in the IPCC process. "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG 1) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary." The IPCC summary was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those research activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS committee should find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically pro-IPCC with no scientific justification offered.  They gave no reasons for the selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research studies, but ignoring others. "After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report." Again no discussion of the numerous points of difference between the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics.  The SPM and TS are clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again resorts to endorsement without justification. On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed – "The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little is known about these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any fault with models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from over-heating their virtual earths beyond existing real climate.  Those aerosols are used in the models like an accountants `balancing item’ in a balance sheet, and are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some kind of agreement with current climate.  The committee should have been more detailed on this issue, given their admission that little is known about the effect of aerosols in the real world. On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims to be small (+0.3 w/m2) , they dismiss the well published secondary feedback effects of solar forcing – "Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has convincing observational support." With these dismissive words, the entire body of published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last ten years is thrown out – without so much as an explanation. On the `National Assessment’ – "The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and health, provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change." The  National Assessment has been one of the most criticised climate documents of recent times.  It was attacked not merely by global warming sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC and the global warming scenario.  It was a manifestly political and alarmist document and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the National Assessment. More shame to them for doing so. On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not agree as to recent warming trends – "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee put themselves squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science.  Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites measuring the free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface record, this lack of understanding did not compel them to question the validity of the models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced greenhouse must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms.  What has been observed is quite the reverse.  From this, it requires no great leap of thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a completely false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or both. Either way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having endorsed the surface record again without explanation, they could only pass off this fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given above. In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of which they chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their view’ – as if their mere authority as representing the National Academy of Science were enough to prevail in the argument. Well it isn’t.  The days when mere `authority’ could win an argument or debate are long gone.  Such deference is more characteristic of a medieval priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must be justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern world, and this committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already been stated in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National Assessment. For that reason, the National Academy of `Science’ hardly deserve their name any more." (John L Daly, Still Waiting For Greenhouse)

Response:

Let’s see.  Another tough decision.  A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock.  My my.  A very difficult decision. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science" Today, radical environmentalists will be celebrating.  The U.S. National Academy of Science (a somewhat devalued title by now) has just released a report by a selected committee of climatologists who were commissioned by President Bush to provide an independent U.S. assessment of the current state of climate science. While many in the climate community hoped for a more balanced or critical approach to the IPCC, the National Assessment, and an earlier report by an NAS panel on the surface-satellite conflict, all we got today was a 100% endorsement of the IPCC and its processes, including the infamous `Summary for Policymakers’, full endorsement for the discredited `National Assessment’ (which even most climatologists could not stomach) , and full endorsement for the earlier NAS report on surface-satellite temperatures conflict. This report contained no new science, no new evidence, and most critically – it did not address in any detail a single point of contention raised by global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest report are: "Temperatures are in fact rising" Only according to the surface record, mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows little or no warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate today little different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the committee’s support for the surface record – no reason given. "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this remark, the committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record outright, with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no strong warming `within the past twenty years’, the committee clearly have given 100% blessing to the disputed surface record – without so much as a reason to justify that choice. "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1)scientific report." So they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to raise a single point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is hardly surprising as several committee members were themselves involved in the IPCC process. "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG 1) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary." The IPCC summary was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those research activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS committee should find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically pro-IPCC with no scientific justification offered.  They gave no reasons for the selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research studies, but ignoring others. "After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report." Again no discussion of the numerous points of difference between the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics.  The SPM and TS are clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again resorts to endorsement without justification. On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed – "The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little is known about these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any fault with models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from over-heating their virtual earths beyond existing real climate.  Those aerosols are used in the models like an accountants `balancing item’ in a balance sheet, and are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some kind of agreement with current climate.  The committee should have been more detailed on this issue, given their admission that little is known about the effect of aerosols in the real world. On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims to be small (+0.3 w/m2) , they dismiss the well published secondary feedback effects of solar forcing – "Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has convincing observational support." With these dismissive words, the entire body of published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last ten years is thrown out – without so much as an explanation. On the `National Assessment’ – "The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and health, provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change." The  National Assessment has been one of the most criticised climate documents of recent times.  It was attacked not merely by global warming sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC and the global warming scenario.  It was a manifestly political and alarmist document and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the National Assessment. More shame to them for doing so. On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not agree as to recent warming trends – "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee put themselves squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science.  Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites measuring the free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface record, this lack of understanding did not compel them to question the validity of the models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced greenhouse must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms.  What has been observed is quite the reverse.  From this, it requires no great leap of thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a completely false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or both. Either way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having endorsed the surface record again without explanation, they could only pass off this fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given above. In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of which they chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their view’ – as if their mere authority as representing the National Academy of Science were enough to prevail in the argument. Well it isn’t.  The days when mere `authority’ could win an argument or debate are long gone.  Such deference is more characteristic of a medieval priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must be justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern world, and this committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already been stated in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National Assessment. For that reason, the National Academy of `Science’ hardly deserve their name any more." (John L Daly, Still Waiting For Greenhouse)

Response:

Let’s see now.  A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat.  Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock.  I wonder who I’ll believe. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…

Response:

Keyton, the king of mindless dittoheads. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – a rebuke from you the KING of all fools?…. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! \ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie

Response:

Question:

I am starting a small home bookkeeping and payroll service.  What would be the best software package for me? I will probably have up to 8 to 10 companies at the most. I have experience mostly with Peachtree Complete Accounting, MS Money and QuickBooks 99.  Is Quickbooks 99 still available to purchase, QuickBooks 2000 scares me as I have not heard anything good about it.  Thanks for your help! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I have a small home bookkeeping business (11 small businesses) and I use both Quickbookspro 99 and 2000.  I use both because some of my clients use QB 99 and some use 2000.  I didn’t like 2000 at first but now that I have used it for a while and have become accustomed to it, I like it somewhat better than the older versions (have used QB since version 2 for DOS).  My clients range from medical offices to construction and QB works well for all of them. Angela Remember:  That which doesn’t break us makes us stronger.

Response:

Question:

Definitely try Insulin Infusion Specialties. They have been very accommodating with my extremely difficult insurance company. We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams. -WW

Response:

Thanks, I will check with insulininfusion.com.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have been ordering my pump supplies from MiniMed every three months and they seem reluctant to accept the 90% that my insurance pays as payment in full, despite the fact that I can document financial hardship.  I feel that they are gouging us and would like to find another supplier that would accept what the insurance pays, since 90% is a good amount.  Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to who I might work with?  I use the Silouhette infusion sets, standard reservoirs, the power pack and IV3000 dressing.  Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. You may want to check with a local medical supply house.  Although they would not have these items in stock, they may be willing to order them for you and would accept the insurance assignment.  They would charge your insurance company more than what MiniMed charges. Another option for supplies are mail order pharmacies like 50-50 and http://insulininfusion.com Good luck, Marilyn T1 for 33 years, pumping for the last 11

Response:

I understand your problem (I feel your pain???), but I thought it was frowned upon by insurance companies to waive the 10%.  I think it has to do with making sure there is no hanky-panky going on with the prices.  If they did cover the 10%, it would have to be from a third party, like their compassionate account. It’s a weird accounting exercise, but I think that’s where it stands. jeff I have been ordering my pump supplies from MiniMed every three months and they seem reluctant to accept the 90% that my insurance pays as payment in full, despite the fact that I can document financial hardship.  I feel that they are gouging us and would like to find another supplier that would accept what the insurance pays, since 90% is a good amount.  Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to who I might work with?  I use the Silouhette infusion sets, standard reservoirs, the power pack and IV3000 dressing.  Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Antonio

   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!

Response:

I was at an ADA convention recently where MinMed said compassionate use was still a few months away. Doug B. — Buck Type II, Insulin www.diabeticnet.com

I have been ordering my pump supplies from MiniMed every three months and they seem reluctant to accept the 90% that my insurance pays as payment in full, despite the fact that I can document financial hardship.  I feel that they are gouging us and would like to find another supplier that would accept what the insurance pays, since 90% is a good amount.  Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to who I might work with?  I use the Silouhette infusion sets, standard reservoirs, the power pack and IV3000 dressing.  Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

You may want to check with a local medical supply house.  Although they would not have these items in stock, they may be willing to order them for you and would accept the insurance assignment.  They would charge your insurance company more than what MiniMed charges. Another option for supplies are mail order pharmacies like 50-50 and http://insulininfusion.com Good luck, Marilyn T1 for 33 years, pumping for the last 11

Response:

I have been ordering my pump supplies from MiniMed every three months and they seem reluctant to accept the 90% that my insurance pays as payment in full, despite the fact that I can document financial hardship.  I feel that they are gouging us and would like to find another supplier that would accept what the insurance pays, since 90% is a good amount.  Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to who I might work with?  I use the Silouhette infusion sets, standard reservoirs, the power pack and IV3000 dressing.  Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Antonio

Response:

I have been ordering my pump supplies from MiniMed every three months and they seem reluctant to accept the 90% that my insurance pays as payment in full, despite the fact that I can document financial hardship.  I feel that they are gouging us and would like to find another supplier that would accept what the insurance pays, since 90% is a good amount.  Does anyone have any experience or recommendations as to who I might work with?  I use the Silouhette infusion sets, standard reservoirs, the power pack and IV3000 dressing.  Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

You may want to check with a local medical supply house.  Although they would not have these items in stock, they may be willing to order them for you and would accept the insurance assignment.  They would charge your insurance company more than what MiniMed charges. Another option for supplies are mail order pharmacies like 50-50 and http://insulininfusion.com Good luck, Marilyn T1 for 33 years, pumping for the last 11

Response:

Question:

Looking for recommendations on good Y2K complaint accounting software for a catholic parish. — Mike Tate

Response:

Looking for recommendations on good Y2K complaint accounting software for a catholic parish.

Believe it or not….Quickbooks. I set the parish and the parish school up on it about a year and a half ago and QB has worked perfectly. I assume your diocese has a recommended (required) chart of accounts; just dump ‘em into QB and you’re off. — Steve "Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope and nice red uniforms."

Response:

Question:

FAIR WARNING — This very well could be WORSE than SPAM!!! The post by Vulpes titled "Where have all the Staff Accountants gone?" got me thinking about how the tide has really turned. Four years ago, when I graduated with that nifty little accounting degree, I began collecting these rejection letters from all sorts of companies and CPA firms.  Among the accounting firms in my collection, there’s the biggies, such as Ernst & Young and Arthur Andersen, and there’s the little guys who came from places like Foster City, Walnut Creek, San Jose, and San Leandro.  Among the industry jobs for which I applied, there’s the well known Blue Cross, Netscape, and Chevron, as well as the not-so-well-known Longs Drug Stores, The Doctors’ Company, and The Argonaut Group.  I will always remember how my collection began.  It was my first interview for a permanent, full-time position. I was applying for a Staff Accountant position at St. Ive’s Laboratories.  It was a 1:30 interview.  I met with 2 people, each for about 30 minutes, and was out of there by about 2:30.  My rejection letter came THE VERY NEXT DAY which met they must have typed that puppy up and had it mailed before I even got home and took off my tie. Kinda depressing.   One thing that amazes me is that all rejection letters pretty much say the same thing.  They all go pretty much somthing like this: Dear Keith: Thank you for applying for the whatever job. Although we were impressed with your credentials, we regret that we cannot extend an offer at this time. We wish you success in your job search. Sincerely, Horsis Fanee, Manager It really does get old reading the same thing over and over.  What really makes me laugh is when they try to tell you that they will keep your resume on file in case there are future openings.  HAHAHAHAHA!  I have SEEN where those resumes on file end up at my current company – in a box on a dusty shelf in this grungy basement storage room.  I, for one, think accountants have the opportunity to not only be creative with rejection letters, but they also have the opportunity to tell the truth: Keith! That was, like, super nice of you for coming in to discuss the position that never really was open. Frankly, we are suspicious because you are this complete stranger to all of us, and we only spoke to people like you to kill time during our slow season.  Besides, you were just, like, totally gross!  Gag me with a spoon! So did you really think you were gonna get a job??? Like, duh! Given the fact that we most likely will never cross paths again, we, like, really don’t care whether you find a dream job or get hit by a bus tomorrow. Later, Val E. Gearl, CPA Well, well, well… the tide has turned now, hasn’t it?  Now, many of us who struggled just 4 years ago now have good jobs and are in high demand.  I think it would be absolutely hilarious to take a vacation day to go on an interview just to be able to send a "reverse rejection letter." Dear Mr. or Ms. Accounting Manager: Thank you for taking the time to discuss my potential employment at your company.  I really enjoyed meeting you and appreciate your time. While I was impressed with your apparent managerial skills and your corporate culture, I am unable to accept any offers you may be planning on extending at this time.  As you are surely aware, there are many well-qualified organizations, and I have chosen one that more closely matches my needs. I wish you luck in your search for a suitable candidate, and I will keep your business card on file should I change my mind. Sincerely, Keith Onabadegotrip Yeah…that would be funny.  I guess I’m just in a silly mood today! If you’re still actually reading at this point…I’m sorry! Peace in the thing! Keith

Response:

It’s great that the tables are now finally turning for staff accountants!

These things run in cycles, and I’m sure the current shortage will lead to a glut four years from now.  The unfortunate thing I find are those people that select a career primarily based on compensation levels they expect to obtain.  I don’t know of any career out there that I would say is "safe" for a lifetime of work.  Nor, frankly, do I know of any amount of money that makes it worthwhile to do something that you hate for 40+ years (expected life of a career). When I came out of college, there was a glut of accounting graduates, so I’m very aware of the problems when there are too many graduates chasing too few positions.  Similarly, now that I own my own firm, I’m aware of the other side of the equation as well. The hitch, as always, is that it comes down to pure math.  If I have one position to fill (and since most employees want to be paid, I do have to limit the number I hire <grin), then when I get 200 resumes for the position (which was the norm for any opening in the mid-1990s) I’m going to disappoint 199 people, many of whom were more than capable of filling the job.  Stories of such results generally skews college students away from the major. Today that same position may only attract a minimal number of applicants (maybe 10), and even then a number simply don’t meet the basic qualification level.  That means that those that are even marginally qualified likely will, in today’s market, get an offer. But, if you are doing what you like, that economic reality likely won’t matter.  First, because even those hired today will eventually go through a downturn where, at the least, they will see their salaries stagnate for a time period.  Second, because if you happen to come out in a down period, the fact that you are looking to do something you like means that a) you’ll keep looking and b) eventually the economic tables turn again and now you are one of the small group with your level of experience and suddenly are in high demand.

Response:

Remember – You don’t want to work for anyone who’s hiring!

Response:

ROTFLOL!!!!!!  I went through many similar expreiences when I graduated in ‘92 and could completely relate to your ideas!  I will always remember one particularly nasty rejection letter that I received from Price Waterhouse.  The tone of it went something like this:  Thank you for interviewing with Price Waterhouse.  We WILL NOT (my emphasis)  have an opening for you at our company.  Good luck in your job search. I ended up working for a couple of small high-tech firms that went belly-up too.  I now work for a small construction company doing a little bit of everything from Accounts Receivable/Payable to preparing financial statements and making MIS decisions and I love it!  The atmosphere is completely casual and I am also able to have a major impact on the success of our business. I think back now at how discouraged I was for not landing a job at one of the larger corporations and realize that it was all for the best.  I like working in a place where I have a voice that is definitely heard and knowing that I am an important, appreciated member of the team.  I’m not sure if I would have felt this way in a larger, more formal setting.  Anyways, sorry about the long posting.  It’s great that the tables are now finally turning for staff accountants!

Response:

Question:

I’m trying to negotiate the price my company will pay for the Platinum SQL software.  Anyone purchase any of the client server aps in the last year?  Know of any deals done for the software?

Response:

While the company I work for does not sell Platinum, we do have experience in this realm.  I know for a fact that Platinum has discounted their software in the past to get the sale and I am sure they will do it in the future.  If it is the application you want, you really have nothing to lose by trying to negotiate a deal. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m trying to negotiate the price my company will pay for the Platinum SQL software.  Anyone purchase any of the client server aps in the last year?  Know of any deals done for the software?

Response:

I’m trying to negotiate the price my company will pay for the Platinum SQL software.  Anyone purchase any of the client server aps in the last year?  Know of any deals done for the software?

I sell and support a system that competes with Platinum, so I have no direct interest in your situation.  However, if you are concerned about a "DEAL" your emphasis is on the wrong issue.  Your relationship with the VAR that installs and supports Platinum is far more important than any $$$ that you may save by shopping around.  Anyone who sells at a discounted price to get your order will not have your company’s interest at heart.   Your company will spend many times more than the software and hardware cost in paying for the time of your own people in its operation and implementation.  If the implementation is not smooth and your people trained well, any savings from your "DEAL" will be quickly wiped out. The financial well-being of your company could even suffer substantially if the conversion does not go well. — John Mosier,  excelco    voice: (800) 553-6911      fax: (602) 992-2026 2990 E. Northern, B-101  voice: (602) 992-8076 Phoenix, AZ 85028        http://excelco.com/ Accounting System Selector

Response: