1. Attorneys are getting involved in more and more disputes. Disciplinar=
y
matters in the AAA and the CAS are not immune to this development.
2. Given that, we can probably expect that an attorney brought into the
disciplinary process will spend a great deal of energy on technicalities-=
=
including "do your rules say you can do this" questions. If we appear to=
be acting outside of the procedures, we'll be dead before we can even get=
to the question of whether or not the actuary in question followed the
Standards of Practice.
3. The above is a point in favor of giving wider latitude to those
involved in the disciplinary process. Opinions to the contrary have
alluded to certain dictatorial forms of government and possible abuses of=
the system. Please keep in mind that neither the CAS nor the AAA has a
coronation ceremony or names anyone "President for Life".
4. One modification of the rules about which I feel very strongly is the=
new requirement that the actuary in question be present at hearings,
appeals, etc.- and not send an attorney in his/her place. There is an
exception for someone too seriously ill to attend. Current procedures
allow someone to send only an attorney to deal with the actuaries. A goo=
d
attorney should be a shield- not an opportunity to run off the
battlefield. (I read this in a book on divorce, and I consider it
excellent advice in this case as well.)
I agree with Stan Khury's request that we devote more time to evaluating
the changes- how we ensure the quality of the work performed by this
profession is vital our perception in the public eye.
Regina Berens
MBA, Inc.-Consultants in casualty Actuarial Science
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBAInc