[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Gov.Enforced Enviro Indicators and Financial Act.



Donald,
with all due respect...
I cannot see from your observations on the CPMs and the GASB standards
how you could arrive at the conclusion that "the merger of CPMs with
environmental GASB...seems an inevitable merger that could very possibly
set a national precedent"
You suggest that most individuals you contacted in state government were
either familiar with CPMs but not with GASB, or vice versa.  You refer
to a generally expressed "cluelessness" about the relationship between
the two, then go on to say they are an inevitable pairing of standards
-but you seem to be the only one who thinks so.  You interviewed some
very knowledgeable professionals in both the financial and environmental
fields, but asked them to comment on two sets of "standards" (and I'll
use that term loosley) which serve very different functions. I would
challenge your presumptions and be very cautious about  your implication
that based on their infamilliarity with GASB,  Steve Adams of Florida
and his peers in Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota are the ones
who are "clueless" regarding environmnental performance reporting.

For your reference, I've clipped the stated purposes of the two
standards below:

CPMs:
"CPMs are a limited set of national measures, designed to help gauge
progress towards protection of the environment and public health." (from
CPM memo)

GASB:
"These government-wide financial statements will help users:

      Assess the finances of the government in its entirety,
      including the year's operating results

      Determine whether the government's overall financial position
      improved or deteriorated

      Evaluate whether the government's current-year revenues
      were sufficient to pay for current-year services

      See the cost of providing services to its citizenry

      See how the government finances its programs—through
      user fees and other program revenues versus general tax
      revenues

      Understand the extent to which the government has invested
      in capital assets, including roads, bridges, and other
      infrastructure assets

      Make better comparisons between governments."
(from GASB statement 34 into)

Sincerely,
Nick Rosenberg

Donald Sutherland wrote:

>  Here is my latest report on codified state government environmental
> indicators and environmental financial accounting. "I presume we are
> using appropriate current GASB standards for our environmental
> performance reporting," says Steve Adams, an economists in the office
> of strategic projects & planning at the Florida Department of
> Environmental Protection, "but I am an economists and I don't deal
> with accounting standards." Environmental officials in Colorado,
> Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota also expressed similar clueless
> responses.
>  No state ECOS official contacted could speculate on the merger of
> CPMS with environmental GASB, but it seems an inevitable merger that
> could very possibly set a national precedent for codified government
> enforced financial environmental performance reporting.  (C)Donald
> Sutherland 1999

--
______________
Nick Rosenberg
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy
104 East State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602

(802)229-6086 phone
(802)229-6076 fax
<http://www.gmied.org/>www.gmied.org


--------------8DCECDF80A317E208DB11A06
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Donald, 
with all due respect... 
I cannot see from your observations on the CPMs and the GASB standards how you
could arrive at the conclusion that "the merger of CPMs with environmental
GASB...seems an inevitable merger that could very possibly set a national
precedent" 
You suggest that most individuals you contacted in state government were
either
familiar with CPMs but not with GASB, or vice versa.  You refer to a generally
expressed "cluelessness" about the relationship between the two, then go on to
say they are an inevitable pairing of standards -but you seem to be the only
one who thinks so.  You interviewed some very knowledgeable professionals in
both the financial and environmental fields, but asked them to comment on two
sets of "standards" (and I'll use that term loosley) which serve very
different
functions. I would challenge your presumptions and be very cautious about 
your
implication that based on their infamilliarity with GASB,  Steve Adams of
Florida and his peers in Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota are the ones
who are "clueless" regarding environmnental performance reporting. 

For your reference, I've clipped the stated purposes of the two standards
below: 

CPMs: 
"CPMs are a limited set of national measures, designed to help gauge progress
towards protection of the environment and public health." (from CPM memo) 

GASB: 
"These government-wide financial statements will help users: 

      Assess the finances of the government in its entirety, 
      including the year's operating results 

      Determine whether the government's overall financial position 
      improved or deteriorated 

      Evaluate whether the government's current-year revenues 
      were sufficient to pay for current-year services 

      See the cost of providing services to its citizenry 

      See how the government finances its programs—through 
      user fees and other program revenues versus general tax 
      revenues 

      Understand the extent to which the government has invested 
      in capital assets, including roads, bridges, and other 
      infrastructure assets 

      Make better comparisons between governments." 
(from GASB statement 34 into) 

Sincerely, 
Nick Rosenberg 

Donald Sutherland wrote: 
>
>  Here is my latest report on codified state government environmental
> indicators and environmental financial accounting. "I presume we are using
> appropriate current GASB standards for our environmental performance
> reporting," says Steve Adams, an economists in the office of strategic
> projects & planning at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
> "but I am an economists and I don't deal with accounting
> standards." Environmental officials in Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
> Minnesota also expressed similar clueless responses. 
>  No state ECOS official contacted could speculate on the merger of CPMS with
> environmental GASB, but it seems an inevitable merger that could very
> possibly set a national precedent for codified government enforced financial
> environmental performance reporting.  (C)Donald Sutherland 1999   


-- 
______________ 
Nick Rosenberg 
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy 
104 East State Street 
Montpelier, VT 05602 

(802)229-6086 phone 
(802)229-6076 fax 
<http://www.gmied.org/>www.gmied.org 
  

--------------8DCECDF80A317E208DB11A06--