CPA Exam, Mandatory Peer Review.

• Author: Sos, Rent M.
• Position: Speak Out

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the position of the California Board of Accountancy (Board) on two issues that were covered by Bruce Allen's July 2005 article in this magazine: the computer-based Uniform CPA Exam and Mandatory Peer Review.

The Board appreciates that these two topics are of significant interest and relevance to our licensee community. As part of considering, deliberating and deciding policy issues in an open public forum, the Board has welcomed, received and carefully considered input from CalCPA, among other interested parties. Moreover, the Board continually strives to communicate with its stakeholders in a timely and effective manner. It is in that spirit that, on behalf of the Board, I offer the following thoughts on the Uniform CPA Exam and Mandatory Peer Review.

COMPUTER-BASED UNIFORM CPA EXAM

Lest there be any doubt, the Board is committed to a uniform national CPA examination. This Board is neither advocating nor pursuing a California-only CPA examination. Nor are we aware that the board of any other state is considering developing a state-specific CPA examination.

The computer-based Uniform CPA Exam (CB4) is a vast and cutting-edge undertaking on the part of state boards of accountancy, the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (c), the AICPA and Thomson Prometric. Overall, the CBT has been a success. The CBT has not, however, been without its problems over the past year.

The Board, and the boards of the great majority of other states, have been frustrated by an apparent failure on the part of NASBA/AICPA/Thomson Prometric to address the boards' myriad concerns about the operation of the exam and insufficient communication between the three parties administering the exam, on the one hand, and the state boards of accountancy, on the other. Those frustrations culminated in a request by this Board--since joined by the New York State Board of Accountancy--to NASBA to begin exploring alternatives that could be available to the state boards of accountancy if and only if efforts to address the state boards' concerns ultimately proved unsuccessful.

This Board is committed to making the existing structure for the administration of the national CBT a success from the perspective of the state boards. Indeed, the Board is communicating and working individually and collectively with NASBA, the AICPA and Thomson Prometric to identify the root causes of perceived problems and implement effective and sensible...