I THINK YOU ARE READING TOO MUCH INTO MY ANSWER. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT
MOTIVATED THE CURRENT PUSH TO REVIEW THE ELETION PROCEDURES. I THEREFORE, AND
PERHAPS ERRONEOUSLY, ASSUME THAT SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM OR PROBLEMS WITH THE
RESULTS OF THE PROCESS. THAT IS WHY IT SOUNDS LIKE "IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX
IT". I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS THE PROBLEM...... IT IS NOT A WAY TO
DEFEND THE STATUS QUO.
NOW TURNING TO YOUR COMMENT THAT JUST BECAUSE THINGS ARE FUNCTIONING "SOMEWHAT",
DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT BE IMPROVED. SO I PUT THE QUESTION DIFFERENTLY:
WHAT ARE THE AREAS IN WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IMPROVEMENTS?
Gary Koupf wrote:
> I think we are about to enter into the most relevant discussion I have seen
> on this list in a long time.
> I seem to hear Stan saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
> Just because it still functions somewhat, doesn't mean things cannot be
> improved, just so that we don't end up really screwing things up (however,
> in my experience - especially when dealing with my PC - one cannot always
> see how bad things will become.)
> The way I see it, if we are going to call them elections, then they ought to
> be elections in the spirit that elections are held here in the US - NOT how
> they were held in the Communist Bloc in the recent past where the Party
> nominated one candidate and there were no alternatives (if my understanding
> is correct).
> I think in this one matter we can learn from the Canadian Institute where
> they have the members nominate the candidates for all offices (if I remember
> correctly). Then the candidates for president even consent to answer
> questions posed by members through their e-mail list. That way the voters
> can ask and evaluate the candidates on where they stand on the issues
> affecting the actuarial profession and the society.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. K. Khury [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 1:27 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: John.Purple@po.state.ct.us; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: CAS Election Process
> You want discussion.... and that is what you will get.
> I read your notes with intetest. I understand all of your observations and
> what you would like to see happen with putting up most of the positions of
> responsibility for election.
> So, to kick off the discussion, I temporarily will assume your position that
> everyone who is elected is really not elected but appointed/annointed, and
> would like to ask you, what is it that is broken that you would like to see
> fixed? Is the condition we assume, that some people are
> appointed/annointed, a prpoblem by itself? Are the appointed/annointed
> doing a bad job when a better job could be done by elected people? Are some
> deserving people getting overlooked by this appointment/annointment process?
> Or is it something else. I think it would help this discussion if you would
> identify the problems (or the consequences of the problems) you see with the
> current set up.....
> PS. While we are at it, would you want the executive director position up
> for election? And if not, why not?
> Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
> Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
> or leave casnet to unsubscribe.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to email@example.com
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.