GASB involvement in performance measurement runs into NACo opposition

by Steve Traylor
ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

At a Nov. 14 forum in Orlando, Fla. NACo voiced its continuing opposition to efforts by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) to issue standards or guidance on performance measurement. While a strong supporter of public-sector performance measurement and management, NACo believes that the establishment of any such policy is inherently a decision that must remain the exclusive purview of governmental officials.

Eric Johnson, director, budget and management, for Hillsborough County, Fla., testified on behalf of NACo that GASB is “particularly unsuitable for promoting performance measurement.” 

Echoing NACo’s formal policy on the issue, Johnson stated that “accounting is not synonymous with accountability” and that “decisions about performance measurement depend on the specific goals, objectives and strategies pursued by a local government.”  However, as an authoritative standard-setting body, “it would be difficult for GASB to do more than apply a one-size-fits-all standard.”         

GASB has come under fire for its plan to reach beyond accounting standards with its service efforts and accomplishments reporting guidelines. Several major state and local government organizations, including NACo and the Government Finance Officers Association, have called for an assessment of GASB’s role.

NACo is part of the National Performance Management Advisory Commission, which is charged with creating a national principles-based framework for public-sector performance measurement and management.  Rather than seeking to impose specific measures, the commission plans to establish a flexible framework to aid local governments in developing their own individualized performance measurement and management systems. 

NACo is concerned that any “recommendations” or “guidelines” suggested by GASB will be viewed, at best, as quasi-authoritative and, at worst, mandatory. 

“This is completely at odds with the goals of the commission,” said Johnson.  “GASB must not devote its time and resources to a project that is so disconnected to its core mission.  Rather, GASB should step aside and permit an appropriate body better suited to realize the objective of enhanced performance measurement.”