Readers Write: Accountant licensing, U administration, teacher pay, W. 7th streetcar, construction

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

When a counterpoint — such as “Neither you nor accountants should fall for an anti-licensing agenda” (Opinion Exchange, March 20) — misses the main point, it deserves a response. (This commentary was responding to “Minnesota accountants stare down the guardians of their industry,” March 9.) Marta Zaniewski focuses on the mobility issue, the ability for CPAs to practice in a state other than the state that issued their license. Currently, CPAs do enjoy the benefit of mobility, but mobility isn’t the core issue. CPAs solve problems for a living. Mobility will be worked out. The core issue is the increasing cost of higher education, which is disincentivizing students from becoming accountants in the first place.

I invite Zaniewski to visit me in my office at Concordia University-St. Paul and listen to discussions I have with students when I encourage them to pursue an accounting degree. The cost of an additional year of higher education is a deal-breaker for most students when other well-paying occupations exist that require only 120 credits. The accounting profession placed itself at a competitive disadvantage requiring 150 credits for licensure when a standard bachelor’s degree requires only 120 credits. In addition, the Department of Education typically will not finance a fifth year of education.

Every CPA knows that job experience is the gold standard for professional growth and development for young accountants. The alternative pathway bill being considered by the Minnesota House and Senate will not lower standards. If anything, the additional year of work experience will strengthen standards, which is in the public’s interest. Additionally, it has the benefit of reducing the cost of higher education for students who desire to enter the profession.

Eric Grube, Minneapolis

Prof. Scott Laderman’s excellent commentary (”New president’s compensation spotlights inequities at U,” Opinion Exchange, March 14) on the bloated administrative costs at the University of Minnesota warrants major attention from all of us because this is our university, and the administrators we hire must not be allowed to serve their interests. Right now, according to the university’s own records, 19.1% of students are stressed about whether they can afford to eat and 43.6% worry about their “ability to pay for housing.”

Instead of focusing on “market competition,” which is designed to enrich administrators, we should direct our full attention to students and faculty, and the Legislature should demand an independent analysis on administrative costs as has been done elsewhere and resisted by our university leaders. For instance, according to the New York Times in 2009, a consulting firm hired by the University of North Carolina “came up with recommendations that it said could save the university more than $150 million a year.” We must do that here.

Arne H. Carlson, Lake City, Minn.

The writer is a former governor of Minnesota.

In regard to the March 18 article “Teachers playing catch-up on pay”: The summary that teacher’s salaries “trail the U.S. average” and the statement that “Minnesota teachers make nearly 28% less than other comparable college-educated workers in the state” inaccurately presents Minnesota teacher compensation comparisons.

According to the Education Commission of the States, Minnesota’s minimum instructional time of 165 days is three weeks less than the majority of states, whose common minimum is 180 days. Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Vermont and Wyoming also reported deviating requirements of 160, 170, 177, 175 and 175 days, respectively. Instructional time differences will impact states’ relative rankings and their standings in comparison to national averages.

Lessening instructional time and/or teacher certification standards will neither improve teachers’ compensation nor reverse the continuing decline of student reading, math and science skills in Minnesota or nationally.

Jim E. Bachman, Fort Myers Beach, Fla.

The Star Tribune Editorial Board’s recent piece about the Riverview Corridor didn’t mention a few important details (“Rethink desire for St. Paul streetcar,” editorial, March 14). First, arterial bus-rapid transit was already considered and even planned to replace the existing Route 54 bus in the late 2010s, but that was put on hold because consideration hadn’t been given to light rail and streetcar. Secondly, the existing Hwy. 5 bridge across the Mississippi River isn’t ADA-compliant and wasn’t designed with pedestrians and bikers in mind (speaking from experience). The new bridge would have a pedestrian/bike deck similar to the Washington Avenue bridge at the University of Minnesota.

Last and most important is dedicated right of way. Our existing light-rail lines have 100% dedicated right of way, and the Riverview Corridor streetcar is proposed to have between 72% and 87% dedicated right of way. That means for a majority of the route streetcars would have their own space away from the rest of traffic, so the service would have more reliability. Arterial BRT would only have 4% dedicated right of way, so for the rest of the route it could only go as fast as the rest of traffic. As an occasional user of Route 54, I think it’s already pretty close to being arterial BRT, so a streetcar would be an actual upgrade. Yes, a streetcar will cost more, but when considering the upgrades and benefits that come with it, I believe it’s very much worth it.

Eric Ecklund, Bloomington

I read the recent article about the establishments that were put out of business by the road construction on Lexington Avenue (“Construction took its toll,” March 17), and, once again, I ask myself the question: Why do we always expect adjacent businesses to absorb the predictable financial losses that are caused by such work? A couple of summers ago I watched as several storefronts on East Hennepin Avenue went dark while the city ran a large pipe down the middle of the street, and this summer I expect even worse carnage when Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council begin a complete rebuild of that street.

We all want to enjoy improved roads and new amenities, but not at the cost of losing or damaging important businesses and the tax revenue that they produce. If the data does not already exist, conduct a study to determine the relationship between loss of revenue and objective measures such as decrease in traffic, number of ancillary road closures, size and type of the business and days of construction. Then use this information to provide compensating subsidies to nearby affected businesses.

Yes, this idea will add cost to every project, but if the additional money can’t be found in existing budgets, then do fewer projects, with business assistance, at a pace that doesn’t cause such collateral damage. When I make this case to fellow citizens most people nod their heads in agreement. Is there a politician who is willing to take up this issue?