To be approved by membership
American Accounting Association
Financial Accounting and Reporting Session
Minutes of the Annual Business Meeting
August 15, 2000
Jody Magliolo, Section President, called the meeting to order.
The minutes of the annual business meeting held August 16, 1999, were approved.
The following officers were accepted by acclamation:
Mary Barth President-elect
Jim Leisenring Vice-President (Practice)
Jim Wahlen Council Representative
Tom
Linsmeier suggested that it would be a good idea to have the Council
Representative be a former member of the Steering Board.
Jody
Magliolo opened a discussion about having a mid-year meeting by summarizing the
formats used by the Management and Taxation sections. Details of the discussion that followed are recorded at the end
of these minutes.* In general, there
were very few members who thought a mid-year meeting was ill advised. Most of the discussion focused on how to
structure a meeting that would serve the needs of the membership that are not
already being met in some other way.
Among the members present at the meeting, there developed a consensus
that a mid-year meeting designed to benefit junior faculty would be most
desirable.
As a
follow-up to the August 1999 discussion of how electronic dissemination of the
newsletter could save section funds, Jody said that the section would continue
to mail paper copies. The reason for
this decision was that several people wanted to receive paper copies, and the
annual cost of providing them was only about $3,000.
The
final topic raised by Jody was the FARS web page. Jody asked the members to think about what sort of incentives
should be offered to retain the services of someone who would expand the web
page.
The
meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
Jody Magliolo:
Mentioned the need for the section to do something useful for the
membership, but expressed the concern of some members that they are already
overburdened with meetings and would not welcome another. Jody had polled the membership regarding a
mid-year meeting and received only nine responses. (Later in the meeting it became clear that many
members--including several attending the business meeting--had not received the
poll.)
The
members of the Steering Board had polled their departments regarding a mid-year
meeting. The response was positive,
assuming the Section overcame problems (large groups attending sessions,
loosely focused sessions, distractions from recruiting) inherent in the
national meeting.
Jody reported on Katherine Schipper's
behalf that she thought the funds that
have accumulated in the Section could be put to good used by 1) hiring an
excellent speaker for the luncheon at the national meeting, and 2) expanding
the activities at the national meeting.
Gene
Comiskey: The section has yet to
realize its purpose, which was to create a sense of identity for researchers
and teachers in the financial area.
Other areas have successfully used a mid-year meeting to create a sense
of identity. The national meeting is
already crowded with activities.
Jody: The mid-year meeting might be more
successful if people had incentive to participate, and attaching the meeting to
a journal might provide this incentive.
Dick
Dietrich: A coherent theme program
might be successful. The international
section has had success with this format.
Such a program can give the scholars who attend a common experience,
which is valuable in promoting discussion between scholars. At the international mid-year meetings, the
plenary sessions are devoted to practical matters. Research also receives attention.
Bob
Lipe: Not in favor of a mid-year
meeting--too many meetings already.
Thinks a sense of identity--to the extent it's necessary--is served by
the national meeting. Suggests we cut
back on the number of sessions at the annual meeting, and then members will be
more likely to have a common experience because selection is limited.
Tom
Linsmeier: We have $110,000 and have
done nothing. On the other hand, we
need to identify what activity would add value for members.
Tom
Stober: Section is not drawing younger
members into active participation. The
same members attend the business meeting year after year. International and tax sections provide
younger members with an opportunity for paper presentation and feedback. Still, the FARS section may be too big to
provide this sort of opportunity.
Judy
Rayburn: A focused topic and a review
process that keeps paper quality high would both function to prevent a mid-year
meeting, targeting younger member as suggested by Tom Stober from becoming too
big. Favors the type of meeting in
which eveyone attends the same sessions, possibly limited to one day.
Grace
Pownall: The papers for such a meeting
should be made available to participants in advance of the meeting.
Mary
Barth: A mid-year meeting would give
junior faculty an opportunity to connect with the more established members of
the section.
Greg
Waymire: Providing junior scholars an
opportunity to get socialized would be a valuable service of the section. Junior members need help developing research
projects. This help could be provided
by a session devoted to the papers of junior scholars, with constructive
feedback.
Dick
Dietrich: Junior faculty need to know
what kind of research is informative to regulators, decision-makers, policy
makers (e.g., the SEC).
Mary
Barth: The section should offer access
to more of its members. The members who
attend the annual business meeting tend to be those who focus on research, but
the section is comprised of other members who focus more on teaching. Other members might want more connection
with practice. We don't know what the
1,400 plus members actually want from the section.
Tom
Linsmeier: A mid-year meeting could
expand its appeal by including a teaching forum in which people share their
preparations for advanced classes, or share ways in which they have brought
research into the classroom.
Fred
Richardson: Could we piggy-back on
regional meetings?
Jody
M.: Piggy-backing hasn't been very
successful in the past. Joining in with
regional meetings would probably not serve the purpose of establishing a sense
of identity.
Judy
Rayburn: A themed conference could pattern
itself after the content-driven FARS December conference. This conference gave practitioners and
academics an opportunity to talk to each other. Similar conversations would also open opportunities to junior
faculty. The format could identify a
theme and expand it, including cases appropriate for teaching.
Tom
Linsmeier: The SEC and FASB produce a
list of research topics that they would like to hear more on. A mid-year conference could ask for
submissions on these topics.
Mary
Barth: It's hard to get practitioners
to sit in a room when researchers are talking about t-stats. And academics are often bored with the big
picture discussions that practitioners favor.
---------: A session that included researchers and practitioners might summarize what we know--and identify what we don't know--about certain topics, thereby benefiting both groups.
Dick
Dietrich: The SEC has constraints on
reimbursing expenses and could not be relied upon to host such a
conference. (Some confusion existed
among those attending the meeting as to whether the SEC would host a meeting or
FARS would simply use the format of previous meetings hosted by the SEC.)
Judy
Rayburn: Part of a conference could
include the practitioners (maybe morning sessions), and the afternoon could be
devoted to intense research discussions.
--------: It would be useful to post the schedule of
papers in advance, disseminate papers in advance, and post discussants'
comments after the conference. A list
of participants could serve as a discussion list. Discussion could then continue after the conference among
interested members.