CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Election Information
Meet the Candidates
Continuing Board Members

Question 1

Kevin Burke

The exam committee is an important part in a member’s volunteer service as it is a natural place for new fellows to begin volunteer service. The need for confidentiality in the exam process precludes candidates from enumerating their contributions in a meaningful way so I’d say that lack of service on exam committees would be more appropriate as a distinguishing characteristic for candidates. As far as bringing other perspectives is concerned, even though I’m a new fellow (2009), I’m also over 50 years old with experience outside the insurance industry, complementing the perspective of a typical board member. I also bring the perspective of a company actuary at a regional P&C carrier that is involved in a variety of different projects (actuarial and other) on a daily basis.

In regard to fighting for values, there are times when compromise is appropriate and other times, when compromise conflicts with your values, that you must stand firm. I’ll have no problems being the sole dissenting vote and having that dissent noted, but I don’t anticipate any conflict and my vote will be one of many. My votes will be primarily influenced by the wishes of an informed, active membership.

Jon Evans

Another key perspective is that a CAS member must provide high quality services to whomever is the client. Even when we work directly for another actuary the ultimate consumers of the services we provide are non-actuaries. It is very important that we focus on what services our clients indicate they need and not just what we imagine they should need. There is no better indication of need than what clients are willing to pay for, or market demand. In the real world for several decades some services that clients have strongly demanded include catastrophe modeling analyses and mass latent tort reserving (asbestos, environmental, product recall, etc.). The exam system has barely covered these two areas, yet they fall squarely within the context of the two most central CAS skills: ratemaking and loss reserving. Moreover, catastrophes and mass latent claims are clearly long term enterprise risk challenges to industry and not just temporal fad concerns. At the same time in the last few decades much effort was spent by the CAS to develop material to support “Dynamic Financial Analysis” or “DFA”. DFA has turned out to be, for the most part, just a fad created by an insular actuarial perspective: never clearly defined and limited buying demand for such services. ERM (Enterprise Risk Management) has been described by some as the new spelling of DFA. When developing ERM training programs the CAS must focus not on a vague undefined abstract notion of ERM but on concrete real world enterprise risks, such as catastrophes and mass latent claim liabilities, for which clients desperately demand advanced analytical services.

Charles Gruber

Exams are an entry point to the CAS. The Exam Committee, for many Fellows, is where they begin their service. It’s been over 20 years since I served on the committee. For me, as I stated in my “Candidate Issue” section, the exam process is very important to the CAS, but it has to be considered within the entire framework of the organization.

The opinions I currently hold on CAS issues have been there consistently throughout my actuarial career. I have always expressed them and will continue to express them. Though I can’t guarantee that my opinions will actually sway other members of the Board who may disagree with me, I believe that intense discussion on diverse issues will strongly benefit CAS members.

Steve Kelner

I served on an exam committee initially to help ensure that the students taking the exam had good questions on relevant topics. My hope was simply to make sure that we were testing the right issues on my topics rather than minutiae and/or footnotes. When I took over as an Exam Committee Chair my goals were essentially unchanged. I wanted the students to have a fair exam, for us to ask the right questions, and for the right students to pass. (Note that I chaired a new exam, so I had to learn the material prior to testing on it. Then each year as we passed new Fellows, I had to recruit new exam writers and graders so that at the end of my tenure we had an exam committee made up of people who had studied the material and passed the exam. When we started, the committee was mostly comprised of people who had never seen the material to be tested. The material was untested, so we needed to continuously review the syllabus, the learning objectives, etc. It was much more work than simply taking and passing an exam.)

As time progressed, the focus on the right students passing led me to drive for both higher pass marks and higher pass ratios as I was chairing a Fellowship exam. My view was that Associates were very unlikely to be false positives, so a pass ratio of 30% to 40% seemed too low. I tried to bring the pass ratio closer to 50%. I also felt that having a passing score in the 40s or low 50s demonstrated that the exam was not testing the material effectively. Here, again, our candidate pool was primarily Associates, it just seemed wrong to suggest that they should not be able to earn half of the points.

How does this service distinguish me as a board member? I think it demonstrates my commitment to the profession as well as my principles for having invested my time on the committee. Lastly, I think it demonstrates a little of my personality and behavioral tendencies. I tend try to make things better. I cannot always tell you what that will mean prior to getting engaged, e.g., the focus on pass marks and pass ratios.

As regards balance, it is important to me that we as a profession continue to focus on our business relevance and our business impact. It is very easy for us to focus the bulk of our time on issues like exam quality, accreditation, and technical expertise. I hope to also focus on our role as regards the cycle, industry profitability, etc. I cannot tell you how this will manifest but it is important to me.

I don't view myself as an outsider or an insider.

As regards fighting for my values and beliefs, I take a simple approach. I just try to do the next right thing. I am not uncomfortable holding a contrary view but I am not a contrarian simply for argument sake. I also recognize that leadership decision-making does not mean winning the argument all of the time, perhaps it means changing the premise for a solution, the means of achieving a goal, etc.

Stan Khury

I see this as a two part question and here are my answers:

1. Significance of service on the exam committee. This is difficult for me to answer directly as my experience on the exam committee has been more than 30 years ago. That experience helped in forming my professional profile in the early days and as such cannot be expected to have a significant bearing on what I would be doing as a board member. On the other hand I also think that my more recent experience, in numerous capacities in the affairs of the CAS, would be more relevant and hence play a much larger role in forming my responses to emerging issues.

2. Ability to influence outcomes. This is an excellent question and goes to the heart of board service. In short, it is virtually impossible for any individual candidate/member to claim he or she can single-handedly move the board in a particular direction on any issue. However, I believe given the scope of my past experience with the affairs of the CAS, on many levels, I would be regarded as a serious person who has been involved in initiating, shepherding, and helping deliver many initiatives over a period spanning more than three decades. As such I would hope that that other board members would afford my views sufficient hearing and credibility to help move the issues forward in accordance with my bedrock sensibilities with respect to the mission of the CAS.

Ron Kozlowski

I felt that serving on an exam committee was a rewarding experience. It helped me understand the challenges of developing exam questions and grading exams, as well as giving me a better appreciation of the process. I felt it was important to develop questions that would show whether the candidate really understood the issues rather than just memorizing a footnote formula. We want our candidates to be able to apply what they have learned. I also found the grading process interesting as we could see what kinds of question passing and non-passing students were getting right and wrong. Passing an exam meant that a candidate had a reasonable understanding of the materials and not that these materials were mastered. It may take years of practice for a Fellow to develop that understanding. For those of us that had served on examination committees I think it is difficult for us to distinguish ourselves unless we were the chairperson of an exam - which I was not. I do feel that those that served on an exam committee have a better understanding and appreciation of the process and are more informed in dealing with issues such as providing credit for college courses, mutual recognition issues, and syllabus changes.

While exams are important to our educational process, I do not believe that our process should end there; I believe in continuing education. Having received my Fellowship in 1992 I realize that the syllabus has changed quite a bit since then. While I have stayed up to date on some of the technical developments I think it is also important to better understand the business - understanding the risks and how they have changed over time, changes in coverage, changes in claims handling, etc.There are lots of things not covered by the exams that I have learned over my career. Some have eventually been put on the syllabus while others are still outside the curriculum.Today, I am concerned that some of our candidates know how to do the math but do not understand the business. They develop book knowledge but lack experience. I also feel that we need to do a better job in developing better applications and guidance in implementing developing practices.

I have served on many different committees and will bring a broad perspective to the Board. I do not consider myself an outsider or insider.

I believe in understanding both sides of the issue and then making a decision based on good sound judgment. Having worked across a broad set of professional disciplines, as a company actuary and a consulting actuary, locally and internationally, I feel that I can bring a broad perspective to the Board. For those that know me I believe that they would say that I show passion for what I do, I speak my mind, and am person of integrity. As a Board member I promise to bring these traits in representing our members.

Andy Kudera

Thank you for the thoughtful question. Like many of the other candidates I have served on an examination committee. I believe that my service in various leadership positions I have held in and outside the CAS clearly distinguish me from the other candidates. I have served as the Vice President of Professional Education on the Executive Council, as an Elected Board Member, and as Chairperson of three other CAS committees. These CAS leadership positions along with other leadership positions are described in detail in my CAS biography. My tenure in leadership positions outside of the examination committee has provided me with a broad base of experience needed to effectively address the issues that the Board deals with. My service on the Executive Council has provided me with in depth knowledge of how the CAS operates and experience across all areas. Anyone that has served with me can attest to the fact that I am an active participant and not afraid to offer an independent perspective or point of view.

Unlike many of the other candidates I am not running as an outsider. As mentioned previously I have held a number of varied leadership positions in the CAS. I understand how the CAS operates at all levels and have been effective in getting things done. As an elected Board member I would set forth logical and objective points of view that best reflect the interests of the membership and the CAS above and beyond my own personal preferences. I believe that it is important for leaders to put the interests of the membership and the CAS first, over and above their own personal interests. Without this order of priority a leader cannot be effective. On hot topics and important issues it is imperative that the leadership solicit the membership for their points of view and develop a dialog with the membership as an issue progresses, not just as a conclusion is being reached or has been reached. In other words the progression of the thought process needs to be transparent from start to finish so that our members can better understand the issues and weigh in with their input. If elected I would champion and support more effective and efficient communication with the membership. Examples of such communication are more frequent use of the Membership Advisory Panel; e-mail surveys to all members; use of webinars and a list server as discussion forums; etc.

James Merz

I have stressed my service on the examination committee because that has provided me with a respect for the current process. I believe that the examination process has solid roots. While the exam taking and grading processes are a significant part of my history, there are many other parts of my life that allow for other perspectives to be brought into my thinking. Having worked in primary insurance for nearly twenty years, I understand the working environment and pressures that many of the CAS members currently face. I have been successful in balancing my personal life, professional volunteering and work life. This has required a multi-focused approach. I have made decisions and lived with my decisions for many years, thus forcing me to admit my shortcomings and grow from these situations. I believe that it is difficult to explain how one brings balance to one’s approach, but it is a very important aspect, as I have explained to many of my coworkers.

As with some of the other candidates, running as an outsider was a theme to my announcement. I want to assure the constituents that my primary goal in running for the board of directors is to represent the population of the CAS. If I were to be elected, my initial intent going into the position is to maintain the value of the designation that I and others had worked so hard to attain. It is true that my hands may be tied; however, I will try to change things. I have done this in my professional life at the companies that I have worked. Those who know me understand that I do not lie down and allow the machine to march regardless of the consequences. I stand up for what is right in my personal and professional life. This will be no different.

Jim Rowland

Response to Part 1 of the question:
Most actuaries will spend a much larger portion of their career continuing their education, in whatever form that takes, than they spend achieving their credentials. I am proud of my service on the exam committee, but am also very aware that once credentialed, many actuaries must continue to stay current with developments in their areas of practice. It is incumbent upon the CAS to facilitate these educational opportunities for its members, and a large part of my volunteer efforts on behalf of the CAS, both currently and over many years, has been in this arena.

Response to Part 2 of the question:
Regardless of the platform that an individual is running on, I believe it is imperative for the CAS Board to carefully consider constructive input in its decision making process. It is important to understand the driving forces behind strongly held positions. The recent debate over FEM is a good example, where multiple parties have varying interests in the direction this heads – academics, educational institutions, professional educators, and future fellows, just to name a few. With complex issues that come before the board, I will seek to use my experience and judgment to foster constructive collaboration, while also seeking out additional information whenever necessary to arrive at an informed position.

Jeanne Swanson

I believe our leaders at all levels of the organization need to carefully listen to all sides of an issue before making decisions. This is especially important at the Board level. I do not have a pre-determined agenda. The Board will be faced with a number of issues over the coming years, and it is important that our Board members seek to understand the issues and implications of various options before deciding how to proceed. Member input should be sought, where appropriate and practical, to ensure the opinions of our members are considered. The Member Advisory Panel (MAP) is a very useful tool to solicit member feedback in an efficient and inexpensive manner. In the end, Board members need to pursue what they believe is best for the CAS and our members. I will do that.

Question 2

2. Your previous comments told us about your "big picture" strategic concerns. This question drills down to the day-to-day work of the Board. Below are listed six focused issues, not necessarily the most important but real issues the Board has recently faced and may face again during your term. Please number these items in order of your perception of their importance for the CAS. For the most important item only, please discuss its importance to the CAS and its members, how you would like to see it resolved, and why you feel that way about this issue. Your discussion should mention those specific actions you would like to see the Board take on this item during your term.

• FEM
• 2011 Exam Transition
• Global CERA designation
• CAS CE Policy
• Joint Discipline Policy
• Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance

Pat Teufel

The value of the CAS designation, past and future, is in the permissions that the designation affords within the market. I have benefited greatly from the access to opportunity that the FCAS designation provided – I believe that one of the most critical strategic issues for the CAS is to ensure that CAS membership continues to have high value for our members, whether those members work in “traditional” actuarial areas or are forging new ground for the profession in “non-traditional” areas of practice, whether they work in the United States or elsewhere in the world.

The Global CERA designation is a major step forward for the profession – and for the CAS. Consistent with our Centennial goal, Global CERA allows those CAS members who wish to pursue opportunities in enterprise risk management an opportunity to further leverage their skills in risk analysis and quantification and gain recognition in a new and expanding field of practice. I am proud to have served on the CAS Executive Committee as the Global CERA designation was being considered and effected.

The CAS has much to be proud of with respect to its contributions to Global CERA. Your leadership saw the significant opportunity to advance the actuarial profession, worldwide, in a Global CERA designation and they “seized the moment”. The CAS proved itself to be an effective “team player” in the global actuarial arena, articulating and advocating for terms that were critical to the CAS and conceding to other organizations where appropriate.

While a celebratory toast for Global CERA was held in November 2009 at the CAS Annual Meeting, there is still significant work ahead in order to make CAS CERA a reality. The CAS Board has approved an implementation plan and the implementation plan is currently being reviewed by the Global CERA oversight board. For the CAS, building the examination and administrative infrastructure for another designation will be a significant milestone. The experienced practitioner exemption process must be developed and implemented. Will there be additional dues associated with the new designation? Will additional CAS staff be required to administer the new programs? How should the progress on CAS CERA be communicated to our members? How will mutual recognition work? How does the CAS ensure that ALL of its members – whether or not they pursue CERA -- continue to receive high value from their CAS membership?

For individual members, CERA raises lots of questions as well: Should I invest in achieving the CAS CERA designation? What will be entailed – will I have to sit for yet another set of exams? And, for the cynics, is CERA just another way for CAS leadership to expand the basic education syllabus without affecting travel time statistics? The CAS owes its members answers to these and other questions regarding CERA; ongoing communication with our members will be a large part of the work that is ahead.

I am a strong believer in the adage that success comes 10% in planning and 90% in execution. For CERA, we’re entering the execution phase. The opportunity is real, and it is upon us – we need to seize it!

Kevin Burke

1. Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance
2. Joint Discipline Policy
3. FEM
4. CAS CE Policy
5. 2011 Exam Transition
6. Global CERA designation

While all of these initiatives merit discussion, I’ve rated the pending governance initiatives highest because the initiatives were drafted, worded, and presented to the membership in a way that minimized the voice of members. The language of the amendments was written by the Task Force on CAS Constitution and Bylaws. This task force was formed at the November 2009 Board Meeting and it consisted of 3 current board members, a vice-president, and the CAS Executive Director. They presented their recommendations to the board at the March meeting and they were put on the ballot. In spite of the fact that changes to the constitution and bylaws affect all members, there was no call for volunteers to serve on the task force and was no request for comments from the membership at large. This disregard for the member’s voice is seen in the proposed change that purports to give members the right to petition for changes to the constitution and bylaws. This provision allows the board to stop a proposed constitutional amendment supported by 5% of the members from being voted on by the entire membership. As someone who believes that greater membership involvement in governance is essential to the ongoing success of the CAS, I cannot support an amendment that allows the board to override the will of the members.

The board uses task forces to conduct a large amount of essential business. Among others, there are currently task forces on Associates rights, board operation and structure, a joint AAA task force on discipline, and a task force on the nominating and election process. The policies recommended by these task forces have the potential to substantially affect member’s rights and how the CAS conducts business for years to come. As a board member I would work for greater member involvement in board task forces with a call for volunteers for every task force and for a member comment period for task force recommendations. In this age of immediate communication, members can contribute to the inner workings of the CAS on a much deeper level than in the past.

I feel deeply about this issue because, in contrast to the SOA and AAA, the CAS is a much smaller organization and it is much easier to communicate with members and take their views into account. Property-casualty insurance products touch the lives of virtually every citizen and because of the role that actuaries play in the development of those products, we have an obligation to the public to ensure that the decisions made by the CAS are transparent, receive full deliberation, and benefit from a broad range of inputs.

Jon Evans

1. I consider FEM + 2011 Exam Transition + Global CERA designation as all pertaining to the single vital issue of standards of admission.
2. CAS CE Policy
3. Joint Discipline Policy
4. Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance

Standards of admission is the most important issue for the CAS by orders of magnitude. The success of the actuarial profession, and the CAS in particular, is based upon some of the highest standards for admission of any profession. FEM was an unconscionable attempt to obliterate a good part of these standards by allowing good grades in college classes to be substituted for passing three rigorous standardized exams on core actuarial skills. During the design of the 2011 Exam Transition there were many attempts to undermine standards, such as a push to cut the number of exams down to 7. In the end the 2011 structure has some minor improvements along with some weakening of the overall standard. CERA was once a potentially good idea that has now become a questionable asset and a significant risk for the CAS. CERA currently does not guarantee a high professional standard because although there is a route to the CERA credential through rigorous standardized exams the final treaty allows a virtual open end of alternative easier ways to attain CERA without exams.

My preferred resolution would be:
1. In the short run a renewed commitment on the part of the CAS Board to an extensive set of rigorous standardized exams as a requirement without exception for the FCAS and ACAS.
2. In the next 2-3 years a constitutional amendment explicitly requiring an extensive set of rigorous standardized exams without exception for the FCAS and ACAS.
3. CERA holders are granted no more rights in, or recognition by, the CAS than affiliate members holding the AFFI designation.

Charles Gruber

My ranking of the items of immediate importance to the CAS are:

1. CAS Continuing Education (CE) Policy
2. Joint Discipline Policy
3. Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance
4. FEM
5. Global CERA designation
6. 2011 Exam Transition

The CAS new CE policy, to be effective January, 2011, has, in my opinion, created an unnecessary bureaucrative structure, replete with complex rules and potential negative outcomes for members. Currently, a majority of CAS members are members of the AAA and are subject to straight forward AAA continuing education requirements. I understand that the reason for the new CAS policy was to cover those CAS members who are not AAA members. A simple solution could have been a single sentence: “All CAS members will be subject to the continuing education policy of the AAA, irrespective of whether they are AAA members.” Instead, the CAS now has a 10 page document of rules, subrules, and audit previsions. Bureaucratic structures tend to expand after they are initiated. More and more rules and subrules may have to be produced as the original rules and subrules may have to be clarified. In my opinion, this mandatory, coercive process goes against the historic voluntary nature of the CAS. I would urge the Board to:

1. Postpone the implementation of the new CAS policy;
2. Reevaluate the entire issue; and
3. Take additional steps to gauge the opinions of all CAS members before making a final decision.

Steve Kelner

You have four issues that fall in the education / membership space. The fact that you listed them suggests that our current focus and priority is on education and membership. Within that group, it is hard to put any of the issues on a relatively lower priority plane but continuing education policy is very important to me. It is critical to the vitality of the profession. That said, CE policy has historically felt like it is about demonstrating a minimum investment in learning. I'd like to personally spend more time on the issue, hoping to expand beyond minimum investment compliance thinking, but cannot immediately tell you where this will go.

Sorry, but the priority list in greater detail is just a little too arbitrary for me.

Stan Khury

Recognizing that these are all very important issues, it is very difficult to rank them meaningfully in some universal way. But, be that as it may, below I have ranked them in using an A-F scale, with A being most important:

FEM (C)
2011 Exam Transition (F)
Global CERA designation (E)
CAS CE Policy (B)
Joint Discipline Policy (A)
Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance (D)

Joint Discipline: The rationale for a joint discipline process, since the idea first surfaced, has been a bogus issue. The two main reasons advanced in support of a joint discipline process have been "eliminating duplication" and "avoiding different outcomes for the same 'offense' when a member belonging to more than organization is disciplined separately." Having been intimately involved in the discipline process, in a number of capacities ((a) serving on the CAS Discipline Committee, (b) serving on the task force that revised our discipline process the last time it was studied, (c) as an advocate in defending actuaries accused of misconduct before various disciplinary bodies, and (d) as an investigator on a case for the ABCD) I feel I can speak some authority on the subject. The "duplication of effort" is a complete red herring. What happens is that once the ABCD completes its work, its full file is turned over the membership organization, and that record is accepted. In all the cases with which I am acquainted that was the sum total of the investigation and the membership organization never duplicated ANYTHING. In fact I found it helpful that the complete record is transferred to the membership organization to review and to make the final decision. This is the ideal way in which the process was supposed to, and I believe still does, work. The concept of "duplicate effort" is pure fiction and is no basis for a change such as that contemplated by the CAS. With respect to different outcomes by different organizations, that has happened exactly once in my experience. In my service on the Discipline Committee we have made several inquiries as to the number of times this issue has arisen. Well, the ABCD is not able to supply that information because they don't know. So how could this be a problem? Incidentally, the one case of which I am personally aware, the proposed system would not help as one of the involved organizations was the Canadian Institute and they are not party to the proposed joint discipline process. Finally, there are other ways to make sure that does not happen, ways that do not involved ceding any part of the discipline process to any other body.

One aspect of this issue is not covered in the discussion above is the issue of sovereignty. To my way of thinking this is an issue of sovereignty of the CAS. The CAS Board admits members and disciplines members. I find it totally abhorent that the CAS would even consider ceding such authority to any other organization -- who may or may not have a view that is totally synchronous with the interests of the CAS. Ceding any part of the discipline process is just another slice of salami out of the hide of the CAS -- a slice that would weaken our independence.

As to what I would do about this as a board member: (a) I would oppose any motion to proceed on such path. (b) If the effort to stop the attempt at a joint disciplinary process fail at the board level, then I would support all membership-based efforts to defeat the necessary constitutional amendment that would be needed to implement such an change.

I am also fully confident that when the membership is fully apprised of the various aspects of this issue that the membership will roundly defeat any such attempts, whether blessed by the board or not.

Ron Kozlowski

While I believe that these are all important issues I would rank in order of importance as follows:

FEM
Global CERA designation
CAS CE Policy
2011 Exam Transition
Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance
Joint Discipline Policy

Our industry seems to be at a crossroads regarding future exam methods.

While I am not a fan of allowing credit for college courses I would like to understand why the Faculty of Actuaries, Institute of Actuaries, Institute of Actuaries of Australia, Institute of Actuaries of India, and the Canadian Institute of Actuaries have all gone the route of allowing this.

At a recent social event in Singapore, a number of CAS candidates had asked me why the CAS is not following the other societies on this issue and why they should continue with the CAS program. While I tried to emphasize that I believed the CAS track provided the best education these candidates asked whether the CAS designation was going to be a differentiator within their career growth and renumeration. These were difficult questions to answer. I was always taught to act and think independently and not follow for the sake of following. However, I feel that this decision may have implications that affect a number of other goals of the CAS (especially those dealing with international expansion) and that we need to look at this issue from many different angles. I am concerned that we sometimes believe that passing exams and becoming a Fellow should be the only measure by which a CAS member should be evaluated. I support continuing to look at this issue.

Andy Kudera

All of these issues have been addressed by the current or previous Boards. I believe that all of these issues are important to the CAS and its members. Any attempt to order them does not do justice to the remaining ones. In practice the Board routinely deals with multiple issues at the same time. The “Joint Discipline Process” issue is one that I believe will require more deliberation and discussion by the Board over the next year or two and one that I am interested in and will discuss why. The “Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance" will be decided by the members during the voting period next month. I will provide my thoughts and position on this one. The remaining four issues have been decided and as stated in your question may come up again in the future. For these four issues I will provide a brief recap of my perspective on them.

Joint Discipline Policy – I believe that the idea of a “joint discipline” process needs to be balanced with the needs of our members to have disciplinary issues decided solely by the CAS. This feels to me like allowing your relatives to discipline your offspring on a limited basis. The responsibility to discipline offspring resides with the parents and should not be ceded to a pool of relatives. I agree that the current process may be confusing and awkward; however this solution is only treating the symptoms, not the cause of the confusion or awkwardness. The confusion and awkwardness arises because we have ceded the investigation of disciplinary issues to a body outside of the CAS. If elected I would encourage the Board to address the cause of the confusion and awkwardness and not just the symptoms. I believe that our members should only have discipline issues decided solely by the CAS and its members; in other words by a jury of our peers.

Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance – I have become familiar with the five proposed changes and agree with all of them except for one. I disagree with the one affecting Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution and Article IV in the Bylaws. In the past the Vice President of Administration was appointed as the Secretary and Treasurer. The solution is to appoint the Vice President of Administration as the Secretary and Treasurer and continue to allow the administrative duties of Secretary and Treasurer to be performed by CAS staff members. I do not support allowing an individual that is not a Fellow to become an officer of the CAS as we do not allow other classes of members, namely Associates and Affiliates, to be an officer of the CAS. Two of the other changes deal with current practice and antiquated wording. These are straightforward and I support the proposed changes. The remaining two changes deal with removal of an elected Officer and / or Director from office and providing the membership with a mechanism to initiate amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws. I believe that the former is a necessary improvement to our current Constitution and Bylaws. The latter is important in that it gives the membership a greater voice in the governance of our society. Governance is important and the Board should be proactive in examining the governance of our society on a periodic basis, for example, every three to five years.

FEM – I believe that the Board reached the right decision on this one although it caused a lot of consternation with the membership during the process. As I mentioned in my issue identification I believe that the CAS should only consider other methods of accreditation if they support the high accreditation standards that we have become known for. Hindsight is also wonderful in that I believe the Board could have communicated more effectively and frequently with the membership throughout their discussions on this issue.

2011 Exam Transition – I support the new syllabus as we continually need to make sure that our basic education material and methods to test that material are up to date. Any transition is difficult and every effort needs to be made to do this with a minimal amount of disruption to the candidates in the system. Once the Board approved the changes to the syllabus it was up to the Executive Council, in particular the Vice President of Admissions, to oversee the transition. Based on the number of changes to the syllabus and the complexity of them, I believe that the transition has been managed as effectively as possible.

Global CERA Designation – This was a major accomplishment for the Board and the actuarial profession globally. I believe that all actuaries that pursue the CERA designation will benefit significantly in terms of education and consistent worldwide recognition. I would support any future Board actions that strengthen this accomplishment.

CAS CE Policy – Until this year the CAS was the only North American actuarial organization without a continuing education (CE) policy for its members. This policy will mostly impact those members practicing outside of the US and Canada. Most members practicing in the US and Canada can satisfy the CAS CE Policy under the National Compliance Provisions. The National Compliance Provision in the US is the US Qualification Standard from the American Academy of Actuaries and in Canada it is the CIA Qualification Standard from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. It is disappointing that the CAS was the last North American actuarial organization to implement a CE Policy for all of its members. As with the FEM issue, I believe the Board could have communicated more effectively and frequently with the membership throughout their discussions on this issue.

If any of these issues come before the Board again I would champion and support more effective and efficient communication with the membership to obtain your input as the issue progresses.

James Merz

The following is the order of the items that you listed. While each item is important and needs to be addressed, the FEM is a symptom of the most important item. The “FEM Crisis” has been averted, but the issue of following the members’ desires is the underlying problem. Many of the issues below have been addressed without the appropriate consultation of the membership. I believe that gaining an understanding of the members’ wishes is imperative to operate effectively as a board member. The specific item that I would do as a board member is to discuss issues with my constituents to understand how they collectively feel about the issues before formulating my own opinions.

FEM
Currently pending Constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS Governance
Joint Discipline Policy
CAS CE Policy
2011 Exam Transition
Global CERA designation

Jim Rowland

I recognize that various audiences would legitimately consider alternative rankings. While I believe all of the items listed are important, my ranking would be as follows:

1) FEM
2) CAS CE Policy
3) 2011 Exam Transition
4) Global CERA Designation
5) Joint Discipline Policy
6) Currently pending constitutional ballot initiatives regarding CAS governance

The FEM issue is of high importance due to its striking at the heart of how individuals begin pursuit of the actuarial career (the early examination process). In the Issues Discussion section, I outline my past and current involvement with various educational systems and institutions, which I believe to be unique among the Board candidates. I agree with the position that the Board has taken to date on FEM, deciding not to pursue a partnership with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries in establishing and administering a Future Education Methods program.

While I agree with this decision, I also believe that there are educational structures and systems in place in some countries that make an exam exemption system based upon university course work viable. Considerations in this area include oversight of the university syllabus structure, learning objectives, exam structure and content, and uniformity of assessment (there are many more considerations as well). I do not believe the current university system in the United States is workable for an effective and fair implementation of this proposal, which is why I agree with the recent board direction. I also believe that there could be unintended consequences to implementing this proposal in the United States, having to do with a potential shrinking of the pool of qualified individuals pursuing this profession due to a perceived lack of opportunity if the “right” university is not chosen to attend.

Since the Board has recently addressed this issue, I would see the monitoring of how this process unfolds within the Canadian Institute of Actuaries as a primary area of interest moving forward.

Jeanne Swanson

1. Joint Discipline Policy
2. FEM
3. Global CERA Designation
4. CAS Governance Initiatives
5. CAS CE Policy
6. 2011 Exam Transition

Joint Discipline Policy: The CAS needs to maintain discipline authority over its members. Other actuarial organizations need to do the same. Some coordination among the US-based actuarial organizations regarding investigation and disciplinary actions would be prudent. My position on this issue depends on the details of the proposal as it gets worked out. I would like to see the Board continue to work with the other US-based actuarial organizations to come up with a coordinated disciplinary process that will minimize duplication of efforts but allow the CAS to maintain appropriate discipline over our members.

Question 3

Pat Teufel

The CAS benefits from a diverse membership, with broad skills and perspectives. As we grow, the diversity of our interests presents both opportunities and challenges. It is no longer reasonable to expect that all of our members will know each other.

The CAS has worked diligently to staff the Nominating Committee with broad representation from our membership – at large members reflect both those with tenure of less than 10 years and over 10 years, as well as a cross section of employment types. It is hoped that the diversity of the Nominating Committee itself will encourage consideration of qualified candidates regardless of their disciplines, employment status, longevity or volunteer career path.

Having seen the process first hand (when I served on the Board, as VP – Marketing and currently as Chair of the Leadership Development Committee), I believe the Nominating Committee does an effective job in identifying qualified candidates that come from both outside and inside the “traditional pool”. Invariably, though, there will be members who wish to serve on Board or other leadership roles and who wish to express that interest directly (rather than waiting for an invitation from the Nominating Committee). Those members should have a vehicle for expressing that interest, and the petition process provides an appropriate vehicle. I support the petition process and have exercised my right to support the consideration of specific candidates by signing petitions on their behalf during my tenure within the CAS.

As a volunteer organization, the CAS relies on its volunteers to do its work. If we hope to have a strong and vibrant slate of candidates to choose from, we need to ensure that ALL candidates feel they have been given equitable treatment during the election process. We cannot allow the election process to become a popularity contest – nor should we allow the process to erode in such a way that only those candidates with “name recognition” have any real chance of being elected. Further, it is not in the best interest of the CAS, in my opinion, to afford “single issue candidates” a platform for their cause(s). The exposure and comment process affords equal opportunity for ALL members to weigh in on issues that are critical to the CAS and its future.

At the end of the day, I believe that the skills most critical to our CAS leaders are that they have an open mind and a desire to listen to our membership – all 5,000+ members! Our individual biases must be left at the door when acting on behalf of the CAS.

Specific to your question, I would take no action at this time to preserve the CAS petition process. Current and prior CAS Boards have affirmed the value of all aspects of our election process, and I see no need at this time to anticipate that future boards will disagree.

Kevin Burke

I support the CAS petition process and support the codification of the current practice through an amendment to the Constitution and/or bylaws.

Jon Evans

I support the petition process. A petition process or open ballot access are effectively the only two ballot access options for a fair election. Open ballot access could result in many non-serious candidacies and necessitate multiple rounds of voting. I think the petition process is reasonable and the better alternative. It is a problem that the President-Elect has only been contested once in about the last 10 years. This appears to be due to a perception that a petition candidate for PE is assaulting the character of the Nominating Committee nominee. I suggest that in the future after the petition period if there is no petition challenger that the Nominating Committee automatically select a second nominee. An election with only one candidate, selected by a committee, on the ballot is not an election.

Charles Gruber

I strongly support the direct petition process because it offers a clear path for individual members or a segment of the membership to have their views considered by all members. I would support the adoption of a constitutional amendment which would make the petition process an integral part of CAS nominating procedures.

Steve Kelner

I am supportive of the CAS petition process. I don't know the history and cannot currently explain the petition process requires annual approve. The simple, and perhaps naive, solution seems to be for the Board to formally approve the petition process, in perpetuity.

Stan Khury

I support the petition process.

By way of background, I should disclose that I served on the last task force that was charged with reviewing the nomination/election process -- and those deliberations actually produced, among other things, the petition process. At that time the motivation for creating the task force was that there was a perception that all elected positions were being brokered by an insider group and that the input of the membership was minimal (consisted of only the straw ballot process). The petition process was created in response to that perception and in my opinion has worked well. This year I know that there are at least six petitioned nominees for the board. These are signs of a healthy nomination/election process.

How would I strengthen this process? First some background. The original CAS petition process that was recommended by the task force on which I had served included the PE position. A subtle aspect of the original petition process is that the petitioning is done BEFORE the nominating committee meets so that when the full slate is available, the voting members do not know who is nominated by petition and who is nominated by the nominating committee. I think that process produced at least one contested PE election and almost two others -- in each of the two near contested PE nominations, one of the nominees withdrew prior to the finalization of the slate. To the best of my knowledge this information is not widely known. For some reason of which I cannot be sure -- but can only speculate -- the board decided to drop the requirement that a petition for the PE position be made BEFORE the Nominating Committee meets and completes the development of the full slate. The effect of this action is that the distinction between a Nominating Committee candidate and a petitioned candidate is clearly visible and that distinction tends to influence the outcome of the election, and always in a healthy way. So, how would I strengthen the petition process? I would seek to return the petition process to its former basis, where any PE petitioners would do their work BEFORE the nominating committee meets so that the distinction between a Nominating Committee PE candidates and petitioned PE candidates would not longer be visible; similar to the way the board member nominations are handled.

Ron Kozlowski

I do believe that the direct petition process is an important one to make sure that different opinions and voices can be heard. I understand some member's concern that the Board may represent one voice especially when Board candidates are presented through the Nomination Committee. Having served on a number of committees I can say that there is often different views represented but the committees debated the issues until a consensus is made. I respect the opinions of my peers but not always agree with them. As a Board member I am willing to listen to all sides of a debate in determining my position. I would be happy to support making the CAS petition process permanent but would look at the review the number of candidate signatures needed. I am concerned whether members who have not been volunteered before will be committed to the process and dedicate the time necessary. I encourage all CAS members to participate as a CAS and AAA volunteer.

Andy Kudera

I support the petition process as it allows the membership to have an influence on the slate of candidates for the election process. It allows qualified candidates the flexibility of determining when they are willing to run for office and serve. It also affords any CAS member, especially those with differing perspectives, the opportunity to be included on the ballot. Over the past decade the election process has become more robust and transparent and the petition process is one of the reasons why. I would advocate and support the “protection” of the petition process by including a provision for it in our Constitution and Bylaws.

James Merz

As a direct petition candidate, I support the direct petition process. I don’t believe that the petition process should need to be re-approved by board. It makes sense that this would be added as an addendum to the by-laws or our organization.

Jim Rowland

In general, I support the petition process. I believe it provides CAS members with access to diverse points of view and various thinking styles, which can be leveraged for the betterment of the CAS. That said, I believe the process needs to be managed appropriately so that the election process does not become overwhelming and frustrating to the membership.

Jeanne Swanson

The current petition process is good for the organization, and I support continuing it into the future. The Board should consider a revision to our Bylaws to make this a more permanent policy within the CAS.

Question 4

4. Can you commit to attending ALL of the Board meetings if you are elected?

Pat Teufel

Yes. Before accepting the invitation to stand for election as President Elect, I evaluated whether I would be able to meet the requirements of the position. I am excited to be considered for this leadership role, and will work diligently to live up to the high expectations of our membership in fulfilling the responsibilities associated with the position.

Kevin Burke

Yes. I am fortunate to work at a company that places value on service at both the personal and professional level. Company management and our chief actuary recognize the substantial time commitment necessary to serve on the board of directors and they fully support my candidacy.

Jon Evans

YES, barring unforeseen circumstances.

Charles Gruber

I will attend all Board meetings if I am elected.

Steve Kelner

Getting elected comes with the expectation of attending all Board meetings. Recognizing that life throws us curve balls in the form of volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and 34" snow storms, I would intend to fulfill this commitment.

Stan Khury

Yes.

Ron Kozlowski

Being the only candidate outside North America I understand that attending the meetings will require significant travel. I have a strong record of committing my time to various professional committees and activities. I promise to put this activity above my other volunteer professional responsibilities. My firm has committed to supporting me in this endeavor and allowing me the time necessary to participate on the Board. If I was unable to travel, I would look at alternative ways such as teleconferencing or videoconferencing to make sure I was still able to participate.

Andy Kudera

Yes. I will adhere to the Board Attendance Policy.

James Merz

It is my intent to attend all board meetings, either in person or via telephone. As with all volunteer positions, it is essential to understand that my current paying position is a priority and while I plan on attending the meetings, there may be instances where that is not possible.

Jim Rowland

Barring any unavoidable issues that I am not currently aware of, I plan to attend all board meetings if elected.

Jeanne Swanson

Yes, if elected, I intend to be present at all Board meetings for the full three-year term.