Actuaries Debate the CAS Election Process—
Part Two

In November 1999 the CAS established a task force to review the CAS election process. In July 2000 the task force made its recommendations in a final report, which is available to CAS members on the CAS Web Site under "Member Services." One of the report's recommendations, which the board of directors accepted, was to publish articles about the election process in The Actuarial Review. The purposes of publishing such pieces are to educate the members about the election process and to stimulate greater participation in the elections.

Schwartz: The Nominating Committee conducts a preferential ballot in the spring, that allows members to nominate themselves or other members. The Nominating Committee then selects a slate of qualified candidates, which is published in mid-July. Upon petition, a candidate can ask to be placed on the ballot. However, the voters do not learn whether anyone else, beyond the slate of nominated candidates, will be running until mid-August when the additional candidates are posted on the Web site. Also, the candidates who are on the ballot by petition have no means to communicate publicly how their views on the issues may differ from the slate of nominated candidates. Some have commented that this process is unfair to a candidate who seeks office by petition. What is your view?

Purple: The ballot does include the same information from the petitioned candidates as for the selected candidates. The task force did consider that the candidate by petition is at a disadvantage.

Khury: The petitioned candidate ...may be seen as a troublemaker, because they were not endorsed. That is a bad connotation, even though the petitioned candidate may well be a well-qualified person.

Shoop: One of the problems is that petitioned candidates are seen as interlopers. It is unfair to the petitioned candidate. The timing issue should be easy to overcome and eliminate.

Khury: At the time that the Nominating Committee is seeking candidates to serve, the committee can ask any member who wishes to be considered by the committee to obtain a petition. [This] would level the playing field. Once the Nominating Committee slate is out, the voters would not know who was selected and who was not—and whether the slate was constructed by petition or straw ballot.

Purple: The situation is: who wants to be on the board? At the preferential ballot, a candidate should be able to say, please add me, regardless of whether you choose me. The task force suggested this. Somebody can petition before the Nominating Committee publishes the slate of recommended candidates. Then the voters would not know who had not been selected. The board did not accept this recommendation. The feedback was that the board strongly wanted the voters to know who the endorsed candidates were. One other comment that I have is the difficulty of getting people interested in serving. Many people have work or family commitments. It takes time and effort to serve.

Shoop: Any process that weeds out those who don't really want to serve is good. Folks have marital, job, or personal issues that can be time-consuming. For these reasons they are not good candidates. Also, I don't understand this problem with being a "loser." If someone is so sensitive, they shouldn't seek office, because once in office they'll get criticism from all quarters anyway. Further, if there was a problem getting people to serve, perhaps they would be more willing to serve if the process made more sense or if the demands on their time were less.

Khury: Then you lose them.

Shoop: I have no problem with losing people who didn't want to be there in the first place. Otherwise, we are back to keeping them and having a contrived election.

Khury: I really do not think it is contrived so long as there is the right to petition. Some people will say anything to get elected. As long as the questions are not on the issues, if it gives you any insight into their willingness to work, it's good.

Shoop: I disagree. The questions should be on the issues. When I run, I want to get elected because people know where I stand on various issues. If they like what I stand for then I will get elected, and I will get elected for the right reasons.

Khury: I could see a process where each candidate responded to three or four questions, not on the issues, but on their ability and qualifications, plus one open-ended question.

Purple: The task force did not recommend a discussion forum where anybody could ask any question of the candidates. Also, the task force did not want to see debates. The time commitment in responding to unlimited questions from that process and the possible back and forth discussions, seemed too time-consuming. Also, a debate might only show who was a better debater or who has the most time to respond to questions. The question that I would like to see asked of the candidates is, "What do you see as the most important issues facing the CAS over the next two or three years?" Also, I'm not averse to some discussion of the issues.

Schwartz: Currently, Associates have no voting rights. Three suggestions that have been aired are: a) give Associates the same voting rights as Fellows; b) count an Associate's vote as "half" of a Fellow's vote; or c) give Associates the same voting rights as Fellows, but only after they have been Associates for some time (say ten years). What is your view?

Purple: I would like to see Associates become Fellows. If they have an incentive, they are encouraged to do so. If they are career Associates, maybe they [could] get voting rights. I don't feel strongly against that. However, I wouldn't want them to get full voting rights immediately upon first attaining the Associate level.

Shoop: I favor alleviating what I see as the Associates' total disenfranchisement from the voting process. The CAS leadership does not seem concerned. Somehow, the Associates should have a voice.

Khury: Under your scenario, Ed, would an Associate be eligible to serve on the board or as president?

Shoop: I would be in favor of it.

Khury: If the Associates attain full membership rights then we are begging the question: Is the main event going to be attaining the Associate level, with full voting rights? And if so, that is like getting your Bachelor's degree. Then some people take advanced courses and go on to get their Master's degree; that's Fellowship. I believe this is the implication of the Shoop proposal. Should Associates gain full voting rights? I don't know. It is a problem. There should be a higher level that all are encouraged to obtain. The Academy is an example of the opposite paradigm. If you are an Associate, you can become a member of the Academy. Another way of looking at it is that the Academy members are at the lowest common denominator of professional status rather than the highest. That is where the issue resides. If this were the choice in terms of what constitutes the main event of belonging to the CAS, I would probably argue against full voting rights. In any event, I think the issue of voting rights has to be placed in a larger context.

Shoop: I agree that the Associate designation should not be the principal designation. I don't know what the alternative would be. However, I strongly feel that Associates should get some recognition in the voting process. Again, I believe it is a question of will on the part of the CAS leadership. If the will is there, it can be achieved.

Schwartz: Are there any additional comments that you want to make on the CAS election process?

Khury: In Sir Thomas More's Utopia...life is ideal. Elections are held. One representative is chosen for every sixty families, serves two years, and then comes back to his family. If caught campaigning to be selected, he can't serve—ever, in his lifetime. Once they have been chosen to serve once, they can't serve again. This is how I see the CAS system. It is a process of choosing or drafting those who we want to serve. The more we move away from this vision, the more likely we are to lose the ball game of volunteer self-governance. All that the elected board and president should do, is to serve the members. The CAS election process should be true to this ideal. No member should ever be caught campaigning.

Shoop: I would like to see the CAS election process be more open. It is unfair that the [election] results...for the board are protected and not openly revealed, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. The perception of an "old boy" network at the top does not work to the long-term advantage of the CAS.

Khury: Do you think the past elections were lacking? Or the past boards? Have the elections produced any real problematic board members or presidents-elect?

Shoop: Any election in which there is only one candidate for president-elect is lacking by definition. That is not my main discomfort. Rather, I would like to see a process where it is easier for a CAS member to facilitate change. It is extremely difficult, right now, to get on the board if your agenda is too strong, or to influence the board. The process is intentionally structured to not be "user-friendly." It is very hard for an outsider to get on the board.

Khury: Actually, it's easy to break in. You build from the ground up. You join a committee, and gradually you move on to serve as chair. You hold more and more positions, on different committees, and you gradually grow into a position of high responsibility. The process is incredibly open, remarkably so. The system is based on people who do things. The strength of the CAS is in its volunteers.

Shoop: Stan, listen to what you just said: "Do lots of service; do it `our' way; and if we approve, we will let you in…." Actually, I see the CAS culture of volunteerism as possibly being a weakness. The exams are a case in point. We made so many changes to the syllabus, so quickly, and without a well-defined philosophy, that the result was that many students abandoned the CAS.

Khury: We can't get too many people involved in the affairs of the CAS.

Shoop: We're reaching the size where, as the Society grows, more full-time staff should replace the positions of volunteers.

Khury: We currently have a nineteen-person administrative office. It's totally subordinate to the volunteer governance of the CAS. More than forty percent of our Fellows serve on various committees, on a voluntary basis. As we grow, the energy we collectively generate is so vital. The CAS is alive!

Schwartz: Thank you all very much for participating in this discussion.