Kudos for initiating the discussion regarding the election process of the
CAS. This issue warrants serious consideration by the members of our
society. Changes to our election procedures should not be made lightly,
even though they may be necessary.
Your posting suggested that a public discussion of this issue is
appropriate; the response by others proves the truth of your view.
Similarly, the CAS task force, chaired by John Purple, asks that member
comments be forwarded as quickly as possible.
I had sent my recommendations on this issue to the CAS task force in
response to their request in the November 1999 issue of the Actuarial
Review. My letter was sent to John Purple, chairman of the task force, and
Pat Grannan, President-Elect of the CAS. Copies of the letter were sent to
the members of the CAS Board of Directors, who must decide this issue; the
CAS Executive Council, who are also involved in policy issues of the CAS;
and the CAS Nominating Committee, whose responsibilities may change (and
substantially increase) as a result of this issue.
My letter appears below in this posting. I have delayed putting this letter
on-line, even though I agree with your comments, until the recipients of
this letter have had time to fully consider the recommendations.
Ultimately, however, all members of the CAS are affected by this issue, and
all members of the CAS should have the opportunity to comment on this issue
before changes are made.
Some preliminary remarks about the CAS handling of this issue are
appropriate. The response by the CAS Board of Directors has been
praiseworthy. Steve Lehmann, the past President of the CAS and the current
Chairman of the Board of Directors, is particularly sensitive to members'
concerns regarding CAS issues. In our conversations over the past two
years, he has shown a keen desire to hear the views of our members, and
never to conduct society affairs without full exposure of the issues to
those who may be affected by changes. Similarly, Michael Toothman, a past
president of the CAS and currently a member of the Board of Directors, never
fails to remind the Board that they serve at the will of our members. There
is always a temptation to conduct business behind closed doors, and this
temptation must always be resisted.
My letter was sent to the Actuarial Review in August 1999, about half a year
ago. As noted in my letter to John Purple and Pat Grannan (see below), the
Actuarial Review column was written two and a half years ago, though it was
not submitted until this past August.
In truth, I did not expect the Actuarial Review to publish this column. In
many other professional organizations, a column of this sort might have been
regarded as disparaging of the organization's leadership.
Paul Lacko, the managing editor of the Actuarial Review, accepted the column
the day after he received it. He correctly saw that the column is not
disparaging at all. The column seeks to create a more open society, a
society more responsive to its members, which will further strengthen our
society.
The CAS Board of Directors immediately set up a task force to consider this
issue. That was the correct response, even though few other organizations
would have taken so forthright a stand. Moreover, the CAS placed the task
force under the leadership of John Purple and Pat Grannan. The quality of
the task force leaders testifies to the importance that the CAS places on
this issue.
The members of our society may not be aware of John Purple's past
involvement in this issue. About a year ago, John sent a recommendation to
the CAS Board of Directors, suggesting a slight change in the manner of
choosing nominees for the Board of Directors. John's suggestion was so
reasonable, and it was so obviously conducive to greater member involvement
in the election process without sacrificing any power of the nominating
committee or causing any additional expense or effort in the nominating
process, that I was certain his suggestion would be adopted unanimously.
At the Board meeting itself (February 1999), John's proposal was brought to
the floor by the Board's chairperson. Almost immediately, one of the Board
members expressed strong opposition to the suggestion. His views were
seconded by two or three other Board members. John's proposal was summarily
dismissed.
I was shocked, and deeply saddened. I was saddened because it appeared that
the Board was not willing to countenance greater member involvement in our
nominating and election processes. I remember feeling isolated and
outgunned at that Board meeting. These were men and women that I respected,
and yet no one seemed concerned with open elections.
I did not speak up at that Board discussion of John's proposal. I wanted
first to understand what motivated the harsh dismissal of John's suggestion.
I would counsel all who participate in this discussion to listen carefully
to other's ideas, since there are many strongly held views of democratic
participation that affect our views.
The Board has now placed John Purple in charge of the task force on
elections. That was a courageous and correct decision. The Board has said
that they are willing to set up a task force under the chairmanship of a
member who is concerned with openness.
The task force's immediate actions were equally bold. The task force
requested input from the membership. The request for input was placed
directly following the column on the election process. Subsequently, the
task force sent an email to all members, further elaborating on the need for
member input.
As the members of the CAS Board of Directors know, this response is to be
contrasted with the opposite sort of actions taken by another society in
similar instances. The difference is night and day, and the CAS Board and
the CAS task force are to be highly commended for their actions.
The proper resolution of this issue is not clear. Some things, of course,
are not in doubt. It is a disgrace for the CAS to hold sham elections for
President. However, there are numerous possible election procedures and
appointment procedures. It is the Board's responsibility to choose an
efficient and equitable election or appointment process. This
responsibility is not to be taken lightly.
Numerous other issues are less clear. Vice Presidents are presently
appointed by the Board of Directors. That is not necessarily bad, although
the misleading announcement in the Actuarial Review that the Vice Presidents
are "elected" is disingenuous and should not be permitted in our society.
Appointment by a committee or by a Board is still appointment, not an
election. Besides this semantic item, there are cogent reasons for both
elected Vice Presidents and appointed Vice Presidents. My letter to John
Purple and Pat Grannan takes no position on this issue.
This discussion forum has generated several postings about Vice Presidents.
The reasons for elected Vice Presidents are the same as those for an elected
President; they do not warrant repetition here. However, there are good
reasons to prefer an appointment process. Howard Mahler has suggested one
in a recent posting: certain Vice Presidents require experience in
associated society committees. In truth, Howard provides a prerequisite for
certain Vice President positions; he does not provide cogent reasons for the
appointment process. Some other reasons given in other postings are less
valid. For instance, one posting suggested that Vice Presidents do not set
policy, they only execute policy determined by the Board of Directors. This
is not true. It is similar to saying that Cabinet members in the U.S. do
not set policy; they only execute the policy of the Congress. In fact,
Cabinet members in the U.S. set policy under the overall guidance of the
President. Similar, the CAS Vice Presidents set policy under the overall
guidance of the President. The CAS Board also sets policy, sometimes
overriding the positions of the Executive Council, and sometimes dealing
with other issues. The charge of the Task Force is broad, and it should
consider these items.
There are many potential dangers in the work of the task force. The task
force must take care to avoid the argument already heard on these postings:
"What is wrong? Is anything broken? Is there some action that our
leadership has taken which upsets you? Then seek to change that action;
don't complain about our election process."
The American experience should guard us from these arguments. We espouse
democracy; we espouse full member participation is our governing boards.
If we lived in a Monarchy, would we not seek democracy? Even if we
respected the king and queen, even if we had no quarrel with their policies,
would we not seek democracy? We seek democracy because it allows greater
openness between the leadership and the members. We seek democracy to
strengthen our society, not to weaken it. The American experience, both in
past centuries and in recent decades, teaches us that open societies are
stronger and more resilient than closed societies are.
Below appears my letter from mid-December to the Task Force on Elections. I
would encourage other members to comment on these recommendations, to
criticize them, and to suggest alternatives. Moreover, I hope that others
in our society think through these matters carefully, discuss them with
others, and write careful suggestions to the Task Force.
Members should not dismiss these postings as irrelevant to their primary
work responsibilities. The CAS is our society. This is the house that we
have built, the garden that we have planted. We with the house to be
sturdy; we wish the garden to be beautiful. Both current and future members
of the CAS should respond, since all will live in this house. If it takes
half an hour to compose a thoughtful response to the Task Force, so be it.
The Task Force volunteers are the laborers who are building the foundation,
the gardeners who are tending the flowers. They seek our input, and we
should give it to them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 14, 1999
Pat Grannan and John Purple
c/o CAS Office
Dear Pat and John:
The Editor's note at the conclusion of my November 1999 Actuarial Review
column on "Elections" says: "If you have any suggestions for changes please
forward them to Pat Grannan or John Purple, in care of the CAS Office."
The CAS should have a serious election process, both for the President-Elect
and for the members of the Board of Directors.
The CAS purports to have an election process even now. We read each year in
the Actuarial Review that a certain actuary was elected president by the
members. So too Saddam Hussein is elected President of Iraq by its
citizens, and leaders of most ian and communist countries have been
"elected." We should not play this farce in our society. Either we elect
our President, or we say that the President has been appointed.
It is not necessarily true that elected leaders are better than appointed
leaders. Political scientists note the most troublesome potential defect of
democratic regimes: the responsibility for choosing leaders rests upon the
common person, the "masses." In some countries, the public may be too
subservient to tribal chieftains, ethnic traditions, demogogic leaders, or
religious clerics to exercise their democratic responsibilities in the
interest of all the citizenry. The common wisdom, even if tainted by
Western prejudices, is that Pakistan (like most Islamic countries) is unable
to unable to sustain a democratic polity.
These potential problems are not applicable to our society. The members of
the CAS are highly-educated, intelligent actuaries, most of whom have
significant corporate responsibilities. The CAS continually boasts about
the high level of volunteer work in our society. Actuaries who spend weeks
serving our society will surely take a few hours to seriously evaluate our
prospective leaders. We can trust them to make intelligent decisions about
the nominees to CAS positions, to debate cogently the future path of our
society. If we ask them to volunteer their time for society efforts, and if
we rely on their work for the society's functions, we must surely trust them
with the direction and future of our society.
Nevertheless, CAS elections differ in several respects from political
elections in the United States.
* Political elections are long, drawn-out, expensive processes, with
extensive media coverage. For society elections, we seek relatively short,
inexpensive election procedures.
* The U.S. has a political elite, who breathe daily the air of
politics. This political elite expends all its efforts in the political
process. They are supplemented by the chattering elite of the media, who
daily report political events to the citizenry. Our society is different:
the leaders of our society are no different from our members, except that
they are more active in society affairs and proficient at accomplishing our
goals. They work in the insurance and financial industries; they have no
time for political gamesmanship and electioneering stunts.
* Presidential elections in most Western democracies are infrequent
events-every four or five years, often with one or more re-elections
permitted. Our society has continually rotating leadership, with annual
elections and no re-elections permitted for President.
* Political leaders are often chosen for their campaign charisma,
personal valor, or other individual traits. Good looks, oratorical skills,
and media savvy can outweigh vision and common sense. We choose CAS leaders
for the society goals that they have already accomplished and for the
society goals that they seek in the future. Our members are impressed by
vision, not by charisma or political savvy.
The following recommendations are rooted in the considerations listed above.
The recommendations are specific, so that others may modify any
characteristics and speedily implement procedures that are approved by the
Board of Directors.
* Nominees: The society has guidelines for the nomination of
candidates to elected position. The guidelines ensure an orderly process,
and they restrict the pool of candidates to society members who have already
shown commitment and long involvement in society affairs. The guidelines
are sensible; these recommendations do not suggest any changes.
* Views: One is tempted to say: We seek a forum whereby candidates for
political office can make known their views for the society's future. But
this sentence is inadequate. Rather, we seek a forum where all society
members can express their views of the society's objectives, and where
candidates for political office can engage other society members in
discussion of the society's objectives.
This forum is central to these recommendations, so further explanation is
warranted. Many of our society members have serious concerns about the
directions and policies of the CAS, even though these members are not
candidates for leadership positions. The issues confronting our society are
of great import to our members; these issues include academic relations, the
"Big Tent" vision, mutual recognition, independence, international
expansion, the examination system, and many others. We seek a forum whereby
our members can express their views about the issues facing our society, and
where they can question the candidates for society leadership about their
positions on these issues.
* Web Site: Technological progress, along with the general expertise
of casualty actuaries with electronic communication, provides this forum.
The CAS should designate a "society issues" discussion forum. Members can
express their views and concerns about society issues. Candidates for
society offices can express their positions and respond to members'
questions and concerns. Indeed, members should be able to question
candidates about their views, and candidates would be expected to reply
(though not required to reply).
Two changes in "web site etiquette" would be appropriate for this discussion
forum. First, postings on the web site should be named, along with
information about the person's position in the CAS and (if desired) in the
insurance or financial industry. For examples, the information may include
(i) FCAS vs ACAS vs non-society individual working in actuarial position (or
perhaps FSA, FCIA, FIA, etc.), (ii) current CAS officer or committee chair
or committee members, as well as past CAS officer or committee chair or
committee member, (iii) industry position, such as company officer or
consulting firm partner. The description should be brief (we don't want
resumes), such as "FCAS, former Examination Committee chair, consulting
actuary." There would be no requirements about what should be included.
However, in discussions of the society's vision, it is useful to know if the
person is an FCAS with a background of society work or an academic non-FCAS
with university teaching experience. Similarly, it is useful to know if the
person works in the insurance industry or in the investment industry. At
the very least, anonymous posting would not be permitted. If a person is
unwilling to identify himself or herself, the posting should be made in the
"water cooler" section of the student discussion forum.
Second, all postings should be fully professional. This is a positive
requirement; it differs greatly from the negative requirement in other
discussion forums. Other discussion forums require only that foul language
not be used, that sexist jokes not be sent, that racist views not be
expressed. Nevertheless, about half the postings on the CAS and SOA
discussion forums are silly (almost juvenile) comments about irrelevant
items. The postings on the society issues discussion forum should be
serious, as though written in a business memo or in a letter to the editor
of the Actuarial Review.
* Placement: The discussion forum should be, of course, on the CAS web
site. When we first set up the web site, we made an unfortunate error,
though an error that few of us would have foreseen. We separated the
general discussion forum from the student discussion forum. This was a
mistake; the student discussion forum is active, whereas the general
discussion forum languishes. Students provide the vitality for the
discussion threads. CAS members who comment on threads or even introduce
threads often do so on the student discussion forum.
The SOA has one general discussion forum, in which both students and members
participate. That discussion forum is more active and more serious than the
CAS discussion forum (surely much more so that the CAS general discussion
forum). When we introduce the society issues discussion forum, we should
combine all discussion forums into one. However, we should make clear the
requirement for fully professional postings on the society issues discussion
forum. (Question: How would we enforce this? Answer: We could not enforce
it perfectly, and there is no need to enforce it perfectly. However, if an
inappropriate posting were placed on the discussion forum, the CAS office
would post a reply saying that the posting was inappropriate and asking that
similar postings not be contributed.)
* Candidacy: CAS Fellows who meet the eligibility requirements may
express on the discussion forum their desire to be a candidate for society
office. A CAS Fellow lacking access to the discussion forum may notify the
CAS office of the desire to be a candidate. The CAS Nominating Committee
would consider these requests for candidacy and eliminate any person who
they believe is not fit for a society leadership position.
The Nominating Committee would have two additional functions in selecting
candidates. If there are not sufficient qualified Fellows desiring an
elected position, the Nominating Committee should encourage other Fellows to
run for office. This process is far more difficult than simply selecting
the President-Elect, since "running for office" requires the candidate to
develop and express a set of views on the society's objectives.
If there are too many candidates seeking an elected position, the Nominating
Committee should have the authority to eliminate candidates, with cause.
That is, the Nominating Committee can eliminate candidates who do not meet
the high professional requirements of society leadership. However, if there
are a dozen highly qualified Fellows seeking society office, then all 12
would be allowed to run.
In most years, we would not expect problems. There are many qualified
actuaries who seek to serve our society, even if it requires a heavy
commitment of time and effort. Nevertheless, few actuaries want to run in
an overcrowded field. Ideally, we might have three or four candidates
seeking the position of President-Elect and a dozen candidates seeking a
position as a member of the Board of Directors. This should provide a
suitable range of views and an active discussion among the candidates and
members.
* Positions: Once a set of nominees has been selected, the CAS
Nominating Committee would develop a set of questions that would clarify the
candidates' views. The candidates would respond in writing to these
questions, and the responses would be published in a supplement to the
Actuarial Review. This is the format used by the SOA, and it seems to work
well. The editor of the review would edit the responses to meet space
requirements. The additional publishing costs would be the only significant
expense by the CAS for the election process.
* Timing: The CAS leadership changes at the November Annual meeting,
and elections are held during the preceding summer. The questions and
answers for candidates should be published in the May Actuarial Review.
This gives an opportunity for members to read the supplement and to further
question the candidates on the discussion forum. The discussion forum
should be set up after the February 2000 Board of Directors meeting. There
should be an email notice to all society members about the discussion forum
and the new election procedures.
These procedures should strengthen our society and further enhance its
reputation as a professional and responsive actuarial society. There is no
justification for our society to appear closed, when we truly seek open
dialog with our members.
Let me add a personal note about the column in the Actuarial Review. It
might seem that the column was written after the candidacy of Pat Grannan
was announced. That is not so. The column was written soon after I joined
the CAS Board of Directors and learned the workings of our election
procedure. The friend quoted in the column is Sam Gutterman, with whom I
spoke two and a half years ago about this issue. Sam's response was more
balanced than the cynical lines used in the Actuarial Review column. Sam is
a highly intelligent man, and his actual response set me thinking for a long
time about the structure of our election procedure.
I have discussed this issue during the past two and a half years with many
other actuaries. Their views were varied; there was no clear consensus on
the optimal method of holding elections. Nevertheless, all agreed that the
current "fake elections" are unseemly for the CAS, and that a general dialog
between the members and the candidates for office is beneficial.
Let me know if there is anything else I can do in this process.
Sincerely,
Sholom Feldblum
Sholom Feldblum
AVP and Senior Associate Actuary
Liberty Mutual Group
175 Berkeley Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02117
Telephone: 617-574-5708
Facsimile: 617-574-5709
Email: sholom.feldblum@libertymutual.com
cc: CAS Board of Directors
CAS Executive Council
CAS Nominating Committee
-----Original Message-----
From: roger.hayne@milliman.com [SMTP:roger.hayne@milliman.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 12:45 PM
To: John.Purple@po.state.ct.us
Cc: casnet@lists.casact.org
Subject: CAS Election Process
This note is in response to the e-mail call for input on the CAS
election process. In hopes of stimulating discussion from the CAS
membership, by copy this is going to the CASNET discussion group. Usual
caveat, the opinions expressed here are my own.
At this point the only elective offices in the CAS (in reality) are
the board. For all intents and purposes the president is NOT elected. The
nominating committee presents a single nominee for the approval of the
membership.
Also, in reality, there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of (some may say
most) power in the hands of un-elected vice presidents. It would appear
that the unelected VPs run the CAS with supervision of the board and often
with significant influence on the board and on what the board considers.
Now that the CAS is phasing out partial exams, the question of just
how partitioning happened in the first place again seems appropriate. I
have found few, either in the leadership or the rank-and-file of the CAS who
were in favor of partitioning of exams in the first place, yet it happened.
It seems this is just one example of how the current leadership structure
can be out of touch with the membership and can lead to harmful results in
the long run.
Although there appears to be democracy in the CAS, significant
(arguably most) of the power lies with those who were appointed (or
anointed) and not elected.
Rather than focusing only on the details of the election process, we
should step back and think more globally and think more about expanding the
direct voice of the CAS membership.
To stir discussion I would propose meaningful (contested) elections
for ALL CAS officers including board members (where there is currently
contested elections), president, and vice presidents. I would also put
committee chairs on the table for discussion.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. I hope we emerge
from this discussion with a stronger CAS with wider opportunity to hear the
member's voice.
**********************************************************************
This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
==============================================To subscribe or
unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.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 caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.