On June 29, the Financial Accounting Standards Board held the second-to-last vote on its multiemployer benefit plan disclosure proposals that have threatened our industry for the past year. As a result of direct involvement by MCAA and the coalition it formed with FASB over that time, the original over-broad and damaging proposal has now been significantly pared back to a constructive compromise that achieves FASB's aims of increasing disclosure, while at the same time avoiding the damaging collateral consequences and unnecessary expense and burden on participating employers - which includes every MCAA member.

In summary: 1) Routine annual disclosure of withdrawal liability in the absence of "probable" withdrawal has now been removed from consideration; 2) FASB continues to use MCAA's compromise disclosure table, called Alternative 1, as the basis for any final outcome; 3) Substantially damaging and expensive disclosure Options 2, 3, and 4 from FASB's May 31st meeting have been removed; and 4) Disclosures pertaining to health and welfare plans offering retiree health care have been removed from consideration.

FASB will hold its final meeting and vote on its new accounting standard later in July. At that meeting, FASB will also settle on remaining "qualitative" disclosures. Barring any unexpected change in direction, it appears there will be no additional burden on private or public companies, and that the final accounting standard will be published this year and slated for effect perhaps next year.

In conclusion (and with the caveat that there are no last-meeting big surprises!), MCAA and the coalition it formed - the Construction Industry FASB Coalition - will have proven instrumental in removing the two worst aspects of FASB's original proposed accounting standard - withdrawal liability and retiree health care plan disclosures. MCAA's coalition also successfully proposed the basic pension plan disclosure table that is being regarded as having achieved FASB's objective by the vast majority of users, and still avoids the many serious adverse consequences for our member employers, their plans and our industry overall that were inherent in the original proposal.

FASB decision making on multiemployer pension plan disclosures in company financial statements heading - tentatively -  in the right direction going into the final stages.  FASB tentatively adopted the CIFC compromise disclosure table at its meeting on May 31st, with a slim 4-vote majority.  The CIFC proposal lists a table with publicly available information for each multiemployer plan the audited company participates in -  plan name, EIN number, funding status notification data (Zone status), adoption of funding improvement/ rehabilitation plan, plan surcharges, probability of employer withdrawal from each plan, the expiration date of collective bargaining agreement covering each plan, and total amounts contributed to each material plan over two years.  All the data are available to the audited company from publicly available information; there is no expensive calculation, retrieval or reporting of funding status or withdrawal liability calculations from the plans themselves.  The worst part of the original FASB proposal (Exposure Draft 715)  - an employer's withdrawal liability in each plan it participates in -  is withdrawn, almost certainly. At the May 31st meeting, FASB worked off the CIFC disclosure proposal, called Option 1.  There were four votes in favor of tentatively adopting Option 1 (the CIFC Disclosure Table basically) for private and public companies for the length of time applicable to statements for those firms.  FASB tabled a discussion of a possible add-ons to Table 1 - either Option 2 (a company's percentage of overall plan under funding) or Option 4, a company's percentage of overall contributions -  for a more detailed staff recommendation at the next meeting.  That add-on may be proposed for only public company statements, or may yet apply to the private sector firms too.  Today's discussion was inconclusive on a proposed public/private company split in that respect.   Also, FASB staff was charged with coming back with proposed ways to show data on number or hours/employees in the contribution column; and/or some projections of future contributions.   Withdrawal liability and other items of quantitative disclosure that were originally proposed and encompassed in Option 1 were tentatively withdrawn by FASB  at the May 31st meeting.  Retiree health care disclosures were not specifically addressed at the May 31st meeting; but there may be some indications that that overbroad disclosure too will be withdrawn at the next FASB Board meeting on the multiemployer plan proposal slated for the end of June.  That may be FASB's last meeting on the issues presented in ED-715, the multiemployer plan disclosures.  Also, at that final meeting, the Board will decide on whether to adopt a final rule or publish another round of disclosures for public comment.  All indications are that FASB staff, based on its conclusion that its public outreach has been extensive, will recommend publishing a final rule.