>>> Regina Berens <MBAInc@compuserve.com>
07/30/97 10:09am >>>
A few thoughts on the discussion thread which has
been taking place on this
subject:
1. Attorneys are getting involved in more and more
disputes. Disciplinary 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 good 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