In My Opinion

A Perfect Expression of Volunteerism by C. K. "Stan" Khury

Once every five years, the past presidents of the CAS spend an evening together. This year marked the 85^th anniversary of the CAS and, on schedule, the past presidents spent an evening together in San Francisco in conjunction with the CAS Annual Meeting. During such a gathering, it is virtually impossible not to reflect on where the CAS has been and where the CAS is going. The 1999 edition was no exception. Looking back on just the thirty-five years since I became a member it seems that the CAS has changed a great deal and yet it also seems that the CAS has changed very little.

In many respects the CAS is much larger. The number of Fellows has grown by a factor of ten. The range and number of the CAS publications have grown a great deal. The influence of the CAS in the international actuarial community has grown—in part, I am sure, because it is the only actuarial society in the world totally dedicated to the contingencies arising from property and casualty risk. The number and range of CAS meetings have grown. And the infrastructure of the CAS, both professionally and administratively, has also grown. Thus, if size is any indication of prosperity of a community, one can safely say that the CAS has prospered.

Yet the CAS seems to have changed very little. The CAS, in its purest essence, remains a community of volunteers (which we often mistakenly refer to as an "organization" of volunteers). Volunteerism is still the principal driving energy that courses through the system and keeps the CAS vital and relevant. The administrative infrastructure of the CAS continues to be subordinate to the professional infrastructure—and this feature of the CAS has been jealously guarded over the years. The institution has remained subordinate to the individual practicing actuary and the ideas that drive the science that occupies our attention.

Thus, while the CAS is thriving, its main identity has changed very little except, perhaps, it has gotten stronger. Why is that? Could it be the volunteer culture that makes all of this possible? Over the years, a substantial portion of the CAS has been directly involved in its affairs—no matter the subject. As a matter of fact as the number of Fellows has grown, the proportion of Fellows involved in the affairs of the CAS has increased. This is counterintuitive. But it is a fact! Even a quick glance at the Yearbook suggests the scope of the involvement of the membership with the affairs of the CAS. The Yearbook, as of this writing, lists 48 percent of the Fellows as engaged in service in one capacity or another—and this does not necessarily include those who serve on panels, write papers, participate in the CAS Regional Affiliates' governance, and otherwise participate in activities that are not listed. This is a vital energy that will always serve the community well as it has no purpose other than supporting the community in every respect. This energy has no ego-based (political?) agenda. It also suggests that the "system," as it is constructed, is operated by a fully enfranchised membership. This is the ultimate form of self-governance. All of this brings me to a matter that has received a bit of recent attention on these pages—the question of whether the nominees for various elected positions in the CAS should be required to produce "position statements" on various issues ahead of the election. We certainly may debate the value of position statements of some variety—and whether they may help improve the quality of the results of the election process and ultimately strengthen the CAS. At this juncture I would only like to offer as Exhibit A the accomplishments of the culture of volunteerism, only a tiny part of which is ratified by elections, over the past thirty-five years. The fact is that the vast majority of those who serve the CAS in various capacities do so as appointed volunteers. And out of those appointed volunteers, a few go on to greater appointed positions of service and are ultimately drafted for elected positions of service. In a sense this is as close to a "meritocracy" as one can get. Would a position statement help this process? I must say I would have to be convinced. The evidence of the U.S. election process—for paid positions—with all of its platforms and various other position statements does not augur well for this idea. In fact, the process of having position statements, in a sense, diminishes the idea of volunteerism for service to the community, by people who otherwise have full-time jobs, and who put in many hours of their personal time in service to the community. Would a person who can write a superior position statement make a better servant of the CAS? I am not sure. The track record of the group wisdom of the past thirty-five years or so has been virtually spotless from almost any point of perspective.

I would urge great caution and great deliberation in stepping out in the direction of politicizing the energy of the volunteers who serve the CAS. At a minimum, we need to be specifically aware of what a position statement can do to improve the process and what a position statement can do to harm the process—and then balance those interests. The mere idea that some people feel it somehow would be better if we had position statements is simply not enough. From what I have seen and heard thus far, it seems that the idea of "position statements" has all the characteristics of a solution looking for a problem. Isn't the question really "how can we get more information about the various candidates?" Doesn't the fact that the candidates are persons who have demonstrated a long track record of substantial volunteer service say enough about them? The reality is that there is no assurance that position statements will provide any better information about the candidates than what they have already put forth as volunteers. That speaks volumes. And the Nominating Committee annually performs the service of selecting from among the numerous volunteers. Of course, if someone feels that a deserving person has been overlooked, it only takes a handful of members to advance additional nominees. It seems to me we have the best of all worlds. The burden clearly falls on the shoulders of those who would advocate the change—to show that having position statements would materially advance the quality of the process. At this point that looks like a stretch.