>But isn't the point of having "technicalities" to make
sure that everybody is treated fairly. And if our
discipline process is not deemed as fair, the whole
thing is likely to end up in court anyway.<
(end of excerpt)
My first thought was that we need enough leeway =
to do our job, but that legal concerns WILL keep us =
from making rules such as, "Anyone can be thrown out of =
the CAS if 2 Fellows agree to it".
But how do we avoid being attacked on technicalities? If we =
try to limit the scope of the discipline process so =
that the potential for abuse of the system is reduced, then we
get attacked if we don't adhere to every jot and tittle of the rules.
If we broaden the rules so that the Discipline committee and others =
involved have room to exercise judgement, then we get accused of =
being outside the law and running a kangaroo court in which members =
can be harrassed at will.
We honestly need a way to ensure that standards are followed by our =
members or else an actuarial certification doesn't mean much.
Warren Buffet suggested finding the actuary with the worst reserving =
track record over the last 5 years and shooting him/her.
Would anyone care to volunteer other ideas?
Regina Berens
MBA, Inc.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBAInc