NASBA Told Me to Stop Criticizing Them. So I’m Writing This Blog Post.
The National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) sent Earmark a demand letter. You can read it here.
The message, in plain English: stop criticizing us, or we'll pull your CPE sponsorship.
If a standard-setter can silence its sponsors by contract, every CPE provider in the country has a problem.
We discussed this in episode 485 of The Accounting Podcast.
Here's What I Said
In March, I spoke at the AICPA Learning and Development Symposium. I argued that the traditional model of CPE course development is backward.
I also pointed out that polling questions in live webinars mostly prove you have a working index finger, not that you learned anything.
Here's the heresy:
Today, instructors are advised to write a description and learning objectives, and to create a detailed outline before teaching the class.
I proposed flipping it. Let the expert teach first. Record it. Then have AI read the transcript and create the course from the actual knowledge shared.
In a 30-minute demo, I showed L&D professionals how to build a high-quality self-study course in the time it used to take to write the outline.
Expertise first, paperwork later.
What NASBA Calls “Unprofessional”
NASBA's director of compliance pointed to a clause in the sponsor agreement requiring sponsors to act in a manner that is "professional, appropriate," and "reflects favorably on NASBA."
On that basis, they're asking me to "immediately cease making any unfavorable, unprofessional, or inappropriate comments" about them — or lose Earmark's sponsorship.
NASBA hasn't defined any of those terms. In practice, that means NASBA gets to decide which speech from CPE sponsors is acceptable.
Why This Matters To All CPE Providers
The CPE system has real, well-known problems.
You can click "yes" on a polling question while answering emails and get credit. You can scan your badge at a conference, sleep through the session, and still earn hours.
Everyone in the profession knows this. The question is whether we're allowed to say it out loud.
A sponsor agreement should ensure quality, not enforce a speech code. By weaponizing these contracts to stifle debate, NASBA is choosing rigid compliance at exactly the moment the profession needs rapid progress.
I want NASBA to succeed at its mission. That's precisely why I'm willing to criticize how it's being carried out. Professional skepticism is a core value of the CPA profession. Sharing ideas to improve the process isn't unprofessional. It's the job.
My Response
I've sent NASBA a written reply. You can read it here.
I'm not looking for a fight. I want to help modernize CPE. But I'm not going to stop saying what I think.
If you're a CPE provider, a state board member, or a CPA who has noticed the same things I have, I'd like to hear from you.
The profession deserves an honest conversation about how its institutions work, and it can't have one if the institutions get to define which conversations are allowed.
