Candidates Respond

Frank H. Chang

Embarrassingly parallel is a defined term.

There are often embarrassingly parallel problems that we solve step-wise because we aren’t using a more advanced, often available, tool to help. We often delegate such tasks to a team of interns or assistants to parallelize the effort - or perhaps, we give it to a single intern, justifying that this will help them learn. Some tasks are good for learning, others are there just because we haven’t automated or moved the work to a better platform. As a profession, we need to continue to scale our tools and techniques to be able to address our work efficiently instead of creating grunt work of dubious value and pushing that to potential future CAS members.

Frank H. Chang

Thank you! As a fellow music major, I look forward to meeting you.

Frank H. Chang

We should improve the pipeline of diverse candidates by:

1. Removing economic barriers through existing programs such as preliminary exam support and working with the Actuarial Foundation, IABA, OLA.
2. Raising awareness of the profession by working more closely with IABA, OLA, and our university and employer partners.

We should further support the career development of these candidates through volunteer mentorship or sponsorship (see this HBR article on the concept of sponsorship).

Finally, we need to emphasize regular data collection to measure progress and, if possible, the effectiveness of our efforts in this area.

Steve Belden

We need to be able to get the word out to a diverse set of candidates that this is a great career. We need to work with employers to encourage recruitment from more diverse colleges, and set up programs to reach students before they get to college so they are preparing early. We should also look to partner with a few colleges with diverse students to maybe start an actuarial program or online guides to help their students to pass exams. We should not change our standards nor should we have different standards to encourage diversity. Our standards have to be set to be fair and to teach and test the ability of the candidate to perform actuarial work. We should also continue to look through the exams we are giving with an eye toward language or examples to see if a better word or example would reach a more diverse set of candidates. We can always get better at this!

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

Recruitment of talent for the profession comes down to grass roots efforts of outreach and education at both the High School and College / University level. The CAS should promote the career to all groups. It is my experience that successful recruitment is done on a regional level, where the individuals representing the community have a connection to the community.

John Gleba

I do not believe the CAS has a diversity problem. That is, I do not think that the composite make up of our membership is necessarily skewed to any one demographic to the point of exclusion of another demographic. There is only one barrier to entry into the profession: the exams. And the exam process has always been administered in such a way that an individual member’s characteristics, be it sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, or something else, do not play a part in the successful advancement of that member.

The real issue here is twofold: 1) There is an awareness issue of the actuarial profession among certain societal groups, and by extension, certain demographics. These include areas where access to information about actuarial science is sparse or difficult to come by and there are insufficient resources to promote the profession to a more diverse candidate base. And 2) Even in areas where awareness of the profession is adequate and a sufficient level of interest among candidates exists, there can be financial barriers dealing with the economic cost of paying for the cost of exams, study material, and other exam related expenses.

So what can we do as members of the profession to help mitigate these barriers? The first thing we can do is to continue to work with and partner with groups to increase awareness of the profession among segments of the population that have not historically been represented in our membership. This may include expanding our university liaison program to target localized schools and universities that have not traditionally been exposed to actuarial science, and to partner with focused community groups to expand our presence in targeted communities. Secondly, we can provide a reimbursement program for candidates who have demonstrated financial needs, without regard to race, sex, political affiliations, or any other characteristic. This has started to happen with the recent implementation of the needs-based exam reimbursement program for candidates who fall below specified economic guidelines. As with most initiatives, there is room for improvement and refinement for these programs.

Lastly, the most important thing we can do is to GET INVOLVED. I often hear other actuaries complain about the current state of the profession, or express frustration that the CAS is adopting this strategy but not that strategy, or not being transparent in its communications. And while there is some validity to those complaints, the reality is that on many occasions, the vast majority of the CAS membership either stays silent or doesn’t take the time to communicate their opinions to the leadership in a timely manner. The membership is too often in a reactionary state (“I can’t believe they did that!”) than a proactive state (“How can I make sure my opinion is heard and considered?”). So if you are concerned about diversity, for example, or the direction of the CAS and the profession, and want your voice to be heard, consider volunteering for a committee, or helping on a research group, or moderating a panel at a CAS meeting, or offering to speak at a local college or university. There are lots of ways you can get more involved in the society even if you have constraints with regards to time or other obligations.

Alan M. Hines

It is difficult to answer this question without knowing why our society has an unusual distribution of members. Having a diverse membership is just as important for the CAS as it is for every other business. However, what I have not seen from CAS leadership is a clear articulation of the source of the problem. Has evidence been presented to indicate that the CAS admission process has implicit diversity barriers? Is it possible that the skills, aptitude, and even enjoyment of the subject matter for our profession simply aligns with certain people more than others? Has the CAS analyzed college enrollment statistics to understand if there are distribution disparities among students taking and excelling in classes that teach our core competencies? Have there been any studies to determine why the CAS is not attracting a proportional share of the qualified candidates across all diverse groups? Is it possible that the people we are competing for have more prominent role models in other industries?

Before we can implement change, we first need to identify the problem. If we don’t clearly identify why our membership lacks diversity, our efforts will likely end in wasted time and resources without any meaningful results.

Any recommended changes to enhance the diversity of the actuarial profession must maintain the high professional standards the CAS has always set forth. I believe that the CAS admission process is fair and unbiased. The subject matter is based on the knowledge and skills actuaries need to be successful. The CAS has established controls regarding the creation of the exam questions, administration of the tests, and the grading of the exams. These controls were designed to ensure that the process is fair for all candidates. However, if changes to our admission process are recommended, as a Member of the Board I would make it a priority to listen, evaluate, and then recommend changes that enhance fairness for all candidates.

As a CAS Board Member, I would not be in favor of changes to the admission process that diminish the value of the CAS designation.

Julie Lederer

I submitted public comments on the DEI strategy: See row 114 of “Revised-CAS-DEI-Strategy-Exposure-Comments-2022-02-14”. In my comments, I said:

1) “Supporting higher education and STEM careers will benefit not just the CAS, but the U.S. as a whole [...] These efforts will help the CAS reach potential candidates who may not have prior exposure to actuarial science. It also helps the CAS attract candidates with backgrounds that are underrepresented in the profession.”

2) “Highlighting individual members and the challenges they face is a good way to increase the profession’s awareness and sensitivity. In addition, the ‘Spotlight on Diversity’ articles in the Actuarial Review are informative.”

3) “I appreciate the recognition that financial hardship can present a barrier to entry – not just with respect to exam costs but also the costs associated with maintaining an internship […].”

With regard to point 1, I appreciate the CAS’s continued engagement with the university community and its support of university case competitions. I reviewed the other public comments on the DEI strategy and noted that many of my colleagues support outreach to students.

With regard to point 3, I applaud the needs-based exam reimbursement pilot program that the CAS announced on May 19. Per the other public comments, many of my colleagues agreed that removing financial barriers to entry is an important initiative.

Len Llaguno

Diversity is very important for the health and future of our professional community. I believe the CAS should continue to lead in this area by investing time and resources in its DEI initiatives and raising awareness about the importance of diversity. However, large scale change will not come from the actions of the CAS alone. Ultimately, it’s in the hands of all of us (the CAS members) to act on this awareness to create the change we want to see.

Amber Rohde

You can strive for diversity, but you can’t retain it without inclusion and equity. The three go hand in hand in the aim to increase our diverse pool of candidates. The “Equity” in DE&I is not equity in outcome (i.e., exam results), but rather it is equity in opportunity (i.e., addressing barriers within our outreach such as awareness and affordability). 

So, to enhance our diversity, the CAS should focus on addressing the following issues and barriers:

• Low awareness of the profession
  • Partnering with Diversity Networks (ABACUS, IABA, NAWA, OLA, SAGAA, SANA, Actuarial Foundation, etc.) and volunteers, we can further develop the University Engagement toolset and expand our recruitment reach to additional schools and programs.
  • For example, NAWA (of which I am the cofounder and current Board President) and CAS recently visited the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) Research Symposium, with the aim to create awareness around our field.
• Other STEM majors are becoming more attractive
  • We need to step up how we’ve been marketing ourselves to students. We tend to focus on the ‘what we do,’ but even here we could better highlight the range of opportunities and ways that an actuary can customize a career path in both traditional and non-traditional endeavors. Perhaps more importantly, we are missing the emphasis on social impact, which is rated highly by the younger generation when making a career decision. Our field is important and impactful in this regard, but we need to tell the story more effectively.
  • As an example, I have worked in multiple countries in both traditional and non-traditional roles. Currently, I am running a team within catastrophe risk management at an insurance company, where one of our focuses is on protecting the solvency of the company from global catastrophic events – which translates to protecting homes and businesses, and therefore people, in times of need. Sharing our experiences (which vary greatly across our field) and how we impact the greater good could really speak to the younger generation.
• Financial and geographic accessibility has created barriers for some
  • There is a financial barrier to taking our exams. Some of this is being addressed, mainly with the new CAS/SOA Needs-Based Exam Reimbursement Pilot Program, but there are other barriers that will remain, such as the cost of study material. Exam center location as well can be an issue for some. I have chaired the International Members’ Services Committee for many years, and we see similar issues specific to certain countries as well.
• Preparedness of students for the workforce and/or exams
  • Not all schools are alike. Students may find themselves not only unprepared when it comes to CV/resume/interview preparation, but also exam preparation. This doesn’t mean potential is lacking. Mentoring as well as Resume/Interview Prep sessions run by volunteers and the Diversity Networks are seeking to improve this. We need to continue to expand on this work.

In all, I’m excited for the work being done and the direction the CAS is headed. CAS staff and volunteers are energized. And there is potential to be impactful, if executed appropriately.

David Skurnick

The CAS should promote, publicize and encourage a career as a casualty actuary in low- income areas and at high schools, colleges and universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HCBU).

Frank H. Chang

We should continue to monitor and study these other opportunities. There are examples of lighter requirements, e.g. the “Certified Actuarial Analyst” from the IFoA, as well as data science certificates and bootcamps that we have studied in the past. The CAS has a Chief Growth and Product Officer as well, whose remit will include looking at our education process. If there are alternative educational or certification methods for meeting some or all of the educational objectives of our exams, I feel that the CAS is equipped for that explore them.

Ultimately, the more practical our exam or educational material is, the higher value it will be to both our candidates and our employer partners.

Steve Belden

We are a profession and as such it is critical that new professionals are well versed in our methods and practices. We use exams to test this. We should constantly be looking into other methods to get knowledge to them and assure ourselves that they have gained that knowledge. We use online courses now for some of the necessary content and have requirements for VEE. We have changed the way we are delivering the tests also. These changes are good and we should continue to improve our process to meet the needs of our students while maintaining our professional standards.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

I do not think we should dilute the rigor of the exams and credentialing process. The value of the actuary is not solely based on the passing of the exams. The timeline of passing exams, along with on-the-job training and application of the concepts learned on the exams produces a valuable thought leader and business partner.

John Gleba

The CAS has already begun this process with its Admissions Transformation Plan. The goal of the ATP is to allow the CAS to evolve and strengthen the credentialing process in order to be more responsive to future trends. This process has already yielded several significant improvements, including the movement to computer-based exams, the introduction of a new exam on data analytics, and the elimination of the guessing penalty. I would continue to support this initiative while at the same time ensuring that any future proposed changes to the admission process are based on supported research and fully communicated to the membership and other key stakeholders.

Alan M. Hines

I am not in favor of changes that diminish the value of the CAS designation or the CAS status as the preeminent credentialing and professional education society in the world. In fact, I would like to see the CAS expand and leverage our professional standards into new emerging areas. As property casualty risks continue to emerge, and the knowledge and expertise required to evaluate these risks continue to expand, the CAS may need to expand our use of specialties within the CAS. This will ensure that the CAS continues to be considered the authoritative source for professionals.

I could envision, in the next 4-5 years, the CAS having multiple education tracks (e.g., audit/financial reporting, ratemaking, modeling, ERM, DEI [see response for Q#9], cyber, climate change, valuation, international, etc.). Actuaries may need to complete one or more of these tracks to obtain certification for issuing opinions or be qualified as an expert in various areas. This may also enhance our diversity as it would allow candidates to focus on specific areas that they are interested in.

Julie Lederer

The CAS shouldn’t change its exam process just to attract candidates who don’t want to take exams. The rigorous exam process helps actuaries gain respect in the insurance industry and garner high salaries. Per the public comments submitted on the DEI initiative, many of my colleagues agree that maintaining the rigor of exams is critical.

Len Llaguno

I believe the CAS should be training actuarial students to provide them with the professional knowledge and expertise to meet market demands. I believe there is strong market demand for actuaries with the training that comes from passing a rigorous set of exams. If the market is demanding actuaries with a different area of expertise, this could present an opportunity for the CAS to create new offerings to meet that demand.

Amber Rohde

I don’t see that we need a significant change in the exam process we use for the ACAS and FCAS credentials. In particular, I don’t see a need to reduce the volume of knowledge, the number of exams, the rigor of the exams, or the performance expectations for passing an exam.

However, I feel that there are two important exam issues that do need to be addressed:

1. Relevance of the material and how we are testing people needs to evolve to ensure we end up with top notch problem solvers who are comfortable with real world applications as well as ambiguity. We want actuaries who can use their logic and creativity coupled with foundational expertise and technical skills to add value. This is crucial as we move through the Admissions Transformation Plan (ATP).
2. We also have a marketing issue. In a 2016 study, it was noted that for students, our field isn’t as prestigious and/or well-known as other STEM careers. When picking careers, social impact was important as well. However, many recruiting efforts focus on what we do, versus why what we do is impactful and exciting. We need to shift our approach if we want to compete.

I also think there is an opportunity for the CAS Institute (aka iCAS, https://thecasinstitute.org/) to step in here. For example, there could be potential to create specialists who are not ACAS/FCAS, but still key players in the analytics teams that insurance companies and other organizations need.

David Skurnick

The current exam structure is working well. The exams are evidently not too difficult to attract potential actuaries, because large numbers of candidates continue to sit for the exams. These exams help maintain the high standard and professionalism of Casualty Actuaries.

Frank H. Chang

From my understanding, it should be up to actuaries to set learning objectives needed to meet the collective bar needed for our profession and for regulatory purposes. These learning objectives may include suggested syllabus materials and the “bar” would include pass marks. That said, actuaries are not all experts in pedagogy and should be open to staff and other experts to help us with the “how” - including setting tenable objectives, improving testing methods, as well as exam delivery and experience.

If this is a contentious issue, I look forward to being involved in its resolution. Please reach out to me directly with concerns.

Steve Belden

CAS members, whether staff or volunteer, should have the final say. We are the professionals and we are responsible for upholding our standards for admission. There are some cases where the outside experts have specialized knowledge and contribute to the syllabus materials and exam content, and it is appropriate for the CAS members managing the exam process to delegate some decisions to them, but the responsibility for the quality and comprehensiveness of the exams should lie with CAS members. Our exams and other credentialing requirements are a very specialized and comprehensive course of study for the candidates. As such I would want only CAS members who are well versed in the materials to be making these decisions. These are not decisions to be made by the general membership but instead only for those who we have the requisite knowledge and involvement in the process.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

Yes, through the VP of Admissions, Examination Committee and Syllabus Committee. Under no circumstances should Staff have the exclusive authority on the contents of the syllabus and exam content, setting of passing grades, continuing education content and related matters.

John Gleba

The main issue here has to do with how much control should the CAS staff, the majority of whom are not credentialed actuaries and therefore not part of the membership, have over certain operational and strategic decisions.

On the one hand, CAS staff are much more involved in the day-to-day operational aspects of the society. They participate in every committee meeting, they listen to various viewpoints of committee members, they have historical knowledge of operational changes, and they have the advantage of being exposed to all facets of the organization. On the other hand, most of the CAS staff are not credentialed actuaries and thus do not have the educational background or the training to be able to make effective decisions about the appropriate content of the exams, or to set parameters for pass marks, or to decide on appropriate educational material.

CAS members, who are credentialed actuaries, who have experience and training, and who keep up to date with current trends and issues, do have the ability to make these types of decisions. The problem with CAS members, however, is that the majority of our volunteers are just that: volunteers who also have regular day jobs with high demands that require considerable time commitments that limit their ability to focus on CAS matters. Because of this, the CAS member often does not have the lead time or ability to react within necessary time constraints despite there being a myriad of issues and decisions that have to be made quickly.

In the end, it really depends on the specific issue. If there are decisions that involve clear precedents and guidelines, and are operational in nature, then it is probably okay to relegate decision-making authority to CAS staff. For other issues, which involve initiatives that serve to advance CAS strategic goals (such as determining qualifications for membership), I believe CAS members should have the final decision-making authority.

Alan M. Hines

The CAS is a professional membership. I believe all governance and strategic direction matters should be decided by the membership. The CAS also has a business to run that relates to the daily operations of the CAS. I believe it is appropriate for the membership to delegate the business operations to CAS staff, with proper oversight from the Board.

Julie Lederer

Yes, CAS members, via the Vice President of Admissions and the Exam Working Group, should have the final say on substantive matters that affect credentialing, though CAS staff has an important administrative role to play in the exam process.

Len Llaguno

I believe CAS members should always have input, but it’s more effective for the tactical work and final decisions on syllabus materials, exam content, pass grades and similar matters to be handled by the CAS volunteers, employees and Board members that are closest to that work.

Amber Rohde

CAS Members, 100%. We are a member organization with experts who can and should drive these final decisions.

David Skurnick

CAS members should always have the final say on syllabus, exams, pass grades and all matters related to actuarial professionalism.

Frank H. Chang

If the question is about how the Board could increase transparency, this is something we can work with our communication staff on. If this is about engagement and gathering input across the CAS on CAS matters, we could increase participation in our online communities, host a town hall potentially in conjunction with existing meetings.

Steve Belden

The Board needs to find more ways to communicate the ideas that they are considering. A social media discussion forum managed by the Board and focused on Board level issues might help to not only get the word out but also be a good forum for getting responses with either new ideas or refinements to our proposed solutions. We need to get the Board’s ideas out to the larger group of actuaries. We also need to get more actuaries to pay attention to the issues that we are facing. Most importantly we need to listen more. We can always get better at listening. It is sometimes difficult to get to everyone when there are severe time constraints. We need to acknowledge the inability to get the word out, communicate the urgency and be prepared to modify course or communications if necessary as we implement our proposed course of action.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

Publish agendas, meeting materials and substantive minutes describing discussion points and actions and next steps.

John Gleba

When developing and implementing significant strategic policies and goals, the Board needs to improve the communication process to its members. One solution is to follow the model used by the Actuarial Standards Board when developing or revising Actuarial Standards of Practice. The ASB produces exposure drafts which are released to the membership with specified comment periods. After the comment period is over, the ASB produces either a second exposure draft or a final version, but more importantly, the ASB responds to every comment received with a detailed explanation of how the comment was considered and what changes, if any, resulted. This last part is the part that the CAS has not historically been particularly good at and is the reason why certain portions of the membership are frustrated and feel like their opinions are not being reflected. I believe the CAS can and should do better. Whether or not they adopt the ASB model specifically, or a modified version depending on the circumstances, the CAS needs to do a better job explaining the motivations and thought process behind its initiatives. This is exactly why I want to represent the membership by being on the Board.

Alan M. Hines

As noted in my background, I have chaired town committees and served as Town Moderator for the town of Canton, MA. When working on town committees, transparency is not only considered good governance, it is required by law. The CAS has employed all of the tools, in varying degrees, that I would recommend. I believe the CAS simply needs to apply these techniques in a more robust and consistent manner. I would recommend the CAS consider adopting best practices for each item listed below:

1. Notice of meetings to include detailed agenda and all action items.
2. Published minutes of meetings with sufficient detail allowing members to understand the issues being discussed and directions being explored.
3. Member opinion surveys to evaluate consensus.
4. Proper exposure of recommended policy changes that impact members, including published discussions of majority and minority positions.
5. Open meeting debates on controversial issues before membership vote.

Julie Lederer

As I said in my responses to the “Meet the Candidates” questions, “I would like to explore the option of exposing CAS leadership projects and documents for member comment along the way.” This is what NAIC committees do: After discussion on open phone calls, we expose documents for public comment before casting votes. The CAS should consider a similar approach for significant proposed changes. This would require extensive assistance from CAS staff: CAS staff would need to publicize the exposure draft and collect, disseminate, and summarize comments received.

Len Llaguno

I believe the path to transparency is open dialogue, and I believe the CAS strives to achieve this. The Board should reinforce this by continually encouraging open dialogue.

Amber Rohde

CAS Board meeting minutes are available upon request. CAS Members may attend Board meetings and get the full discussion (apart from executive sessions) should they choose. The CAS should continue these current practices. One specific thing I would like to see, is a webpage for members highlighting ongoing projects, initiatives, and hot topics with links to the appropriate documents, versus having to search or just being unaware of something happening in the first place.

Big picture, though, we cannot expect members to embrace within a matter of a few weeks a proposed significant change arising out of an issue that the Board has been studying, digesting, and discussing for many months. Early communication is key, and you cannot over-communicate on impactful topics as they arise. Without sufficient communication and transparency, you end up with a lot of speculation, incorrect information, and confusion – which I believe is where some Members currently find themselves.

David Skurnick

Board minutes and materials should be promptly distributed or made available to members. There should be a minimum of materials deemed too sensitive to be made public.

Frank H. Chang

Yes, for significant changes such as ACAS voting rights and the structure of the CAS. However, the CAS Constitution delegates some decisions impacting the membership to the Board and the CEO / Executive Council. For example, I do not believe that every staffing decision should come before the membership - the CEO has been empowered to staff in order to meet the objective and goals set for him by the Board of Directors. The Board is composed of members of the CAS, with three outside directors and a few ex-officio members. The Board elects VPs, and these VPs do not need to go to the membership for a vote.

Member input, however, should be welcome on all matters.

Steve Belden

Yes! That is the way that the CAS has been run and until we decide that it should change we will be led by the Board by consent of the membership. The Board should communicate their ideas to the membership and solicit their feedback and/or consent on the issues that matter. They should then make decisions that reflect or are informed by the feedback. In some cases the needed timeframe is short and they need to shortcut the process but in those cases they need to inform the membership and receive their comments and questions. Staff can be very helpful in managing the process and in creating wording and ideas. We have FCAS’s on staff that can help assure that the right content and contextual phrasing is included. We also have volunteer leaders who help this process. The volunteer/staff partnership is strong and helps facilitate good decision making.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

Yes, there should be an opportunity for a comment and feedback period on proposed organizational and significant policy changes, similar to the ASB process for exposure drafts.

John Gleba

I believe any changes of a significant nature should be vetted through the membership as well as other stakeholders that may be affected (employers of CAS members, or regulators, for example) depending on the issue. The CAS board should never be operating in a vacuum and should always be seeking additional input and expertise from a wide variety of sources. As noted in other responses, the CAS has not had a good history (see CAS/SOA Merger or the Recission of Ratemaking Principles, for example), in terms of communicating significant policy changes to its membership. If elected to the Board, I will push the CAS to increase engagement with the membership and other key stakeholders earlier in the decision-making process to ensure all groups have the ability to contribute to future policies and strategic goals.

Alan M. Hines

Yes – See response to "What should the Board do to increase transparency?".

Julie Lederer

Yes to both questions. Members should be kept informed of significant proposed changes, and these changes should be exposed for public comment.

The term “significant” is subjective, but I believe most members would consider the rescission of the ratemaking principles, introduction of the DEI strategy, development of the volunteer-staff model, development of the Admissions Transformation Plan, and proposed merger with the SOA “significant.” Along these lines, it might help to encourage participation in board meetings, in accordance with the attendance policy. If an attendee believed a proposed change was significant but the board did not, the attendee could request that the proposal be exposed for comment.

Len Llaguno

I believe member input on significant changes is important, and any decision should consider this input.

Amber Rohde

We elect our Board to make strategic decisions on our behalf. However, it is the responsibility of the Board to represent the Members and the Board should use various mechanisms to get Member input (polls, town hall meetings, volunteer task forces, etc.).

Changes to policy within the Constitution or Bylaws, as stated within both documents, do require Members to vote.

David Skurnick

Member input and preferences should always be obtained before making significant changes in organization or policy.

Frank H. Chang

Systemic racism is an issue that is larger than just the CAS.

I do not believe that any individual in the CAS, without evidence to the contrary, is racist. Nor do I believe that any of our processes were created with the express intent of racism. However, our membership demographics ed to understand the causes of this and take remedies directly within the control of the CAS.

Steve Belden

There is nothing racist in our admittance process nor in the way that we govern ourselves to my knowledge. However, in my opinion, many minorities are underrepresented in the membership of the CAS. I believe we are stronger when we can hear from and be joined by a more diverse and representative cross section of our society.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No.

John Gleba

I do not believe the CAS has been systemically racist.

Alan M. Hines

No – See response to "What actions do you think the CAS could take to enhance the diversity of the actuarial profession?". I believe that the CAS has designed an admission process that is unbiased and fair for all candidates. However, I believe we have a social responsibility to evaluate the cause of our diversity issues and take appropriate action if our process is unfair. I believe that the CAS has been a socially responsible organization. It has sponsored programs to help alleviate systemic inequities in education. Many members and companies that employ actuaries have also supported these initiatives.

Julie Lederer

No. Gaining membership in the CAS is based on an objective credentialing process that does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disabilities.

Len Llaguno

No, I do not believe the CAS has been systemically racist.

Amber Rohde

Our exam/credentialing process is and should remain free of systematic racism. Our merit-based credentialing process, in which exam grading is blind to a candidate’s personal information, is an essential component of our structure, and one we must always uphold.

The process that feeds the awareness, accessibility, and preparedness of students into our Society has issues. It isn’t directly the CAS that causes all of this, but rather we are impacted by it and our lack of diversity is what we have to show for it. See my answer to question #1 for my thoughts on opportunities for improvements in these areas.

David Skurnick

Of course not. On the contrary, anyone who passes the exams becomes a member, regardless of race or other personal characteristics.

Frank H. Chang

This will require a longer discussion.

I will summarize just my brief thoughts below and look forward to being more educated on this issue.

1. In general, we should not discriminate based any protected class.
2. Just as rates and practices (e.g. redlining) can produce disparate outcomes without explicitly using race or other dimensions, our processes have produced a historically skewed demographic.
3. I believe the CAS has been sincere in administering exams as well as all other membership related processes. I believe the CAS will continue to be sincere in addressing our demographic problem, which includes engagement, study, discourse, and actions such as promoting our profession to under-represented populations within membership.
4. If the demographic were different, e.g. the perennial choir issue of more sopranos and altos vs. tenors and basses, I believe the CAS would still be sincere in addressing the issue. For me, this meets the test of not discriminating on the basis of the dimensions mentioned above.

Steve Belden

No, the CAS should not discriminate on any of these bases, nor on several others not mentioned.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No.

John Gleba

No. A good example of this is the Diversity Exam Reimbursement Program sponsored by both the CAS and the SOA. This policy provides reimbursement of exam fees but only for certain racial groups (e.g., Blacks, Hispanics, Native North Americans, for example) and only for certain exams where a minimum score is achieved. My concern is that this is example of individuals being eligible for certain programs based solely on their race. A better program is the Needs Based Exam Reimbursement, which provides financial assistance to any group and is based on economic needs criteria rather than racial identity, although even this program can be improved.

Although I recognize it is jointly sponsored, and has been in place for quite a while, my recommendation would be to eliminate the Diversity Exam Reimbursement entirely since it unfairly discriminates based on race. I would also modify the Needs Based Exam Reimbursement Policy by lowering the requirement to a score of 4 (instead of 5) and expanding the program to include higher level exams if necessary.

Alan M. Hines

No. One lesson I have learned from my involvement in town government is that policies created to favor one group of people may end up negatively impacting another group of people. Decisions and policies need to be made in consideration of every person on an equal basis.

Julie Lederer

No. As I said in my public comments in response to the DEI strategy, “The CAS should continue to treat candidates and members equally, regardless of age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disabilities.”

Len Llaguno

The CAS should not discriminate.

Amber Rohde

The CAS should not have policies that discriminate against any protected class.

David Skurnick

The CAS should never discriminate for or against people on their basis of race or any other personal characteristics. The CAS should not even know anyone’s personal characteristics.

Frank H. Chang

Yes, it has been adequately explained. I was not up-to-speed, but was able to quickly read about it from publicly available information.

https://www.casact.org/atp has a short deck with plenty of general and specific information. There are multiple announcements and links on that page. The information seems to have been provided years ahead of any changes to allow for comment. For example, there were detailed changes announced in December 2021 in quite a lot of detail here for 2023, which is over a year’s ahead of the planned changes. There’s a link for comments both in the deck and elsewhere in the website for those interested in providing input.

As far as sufficient input being reflected, I do not know how to answer this. If this is an ask to have a different form of dialogue, e.g. white paper with comment period, there are costs and benefits to this. If the request is related to a specific proposed change, again, I just got up-to-speed so I don’t know what may be considered contentious. However, I’m now in peril of reading into the question too much.

Steve Belden

When I saw this question I had to look up the plan to know what it was. I think that the CAS would be well served if we got the word out, casualty actuaries knew the elements of the plan and felt like they had a say in its creation. That said, an element of the plan addressed the elimination of an SOA exam which was part of our curriculum. Given the short time frame in which we were given to react, I thought the solution was well thought out and delivered in the time required. I was aware of the need, and the arguments, and believe that the document outlines a good solution. We may decide later that we want to refine the solution or change it more substantially. We can always do that. We should also make an effort to solicit feedback and get the full knowledge and buy-in from the membership. However there was very limited time. The Board, staff and others reacted in a timely manner and prevented a gap in our examination process. As with any new process I am sure there will be more to come on this and that it will be refined as feedback comes in on it.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No, there’s a conceptual framework but no details and I am not aware of any member input.

John Gleba

As to whether the ATP has been adequately explained, the answer depends on the individual. Information about the ATP is available on the CAS website, including a lengthy power point presentation that highlights the rationale and features of the plan. It was also explained in the 2021 CAS Annual Report. In addition, it was highlighted in various e-mail blasts to members. So whether the ATP has been adequately explained is a subjective conclusion that will vary by individual member.

As to whether sufficient input was obtained from the membership, this, again is a subjective issue. I was not on the board or part of any committee that developed the Admissions Transformation Plan. Nor was I actively involved in any review or comments of the plan since this is not my area of expertise. Part of the argument may be that the CAS did not poll the membership more, or conduct surveys, or put out exposure drafts for review, and all of that may be true. Could the process have been more transparent? Of course, and this is one of the things I want to work on if I’m elected to the board. But I also believe that the ATP was not developed in a vacuum and was based on solid research and expert guidance. Whether that represents “sufficient input” is in the eye of the beholder.

Alan M. Hines

No.

Julie Lederer

Regarding the first question (has the ATP been adequately explained?): The ATP website (https://www.casact.org/atp) mentions the development of a “re-envisioned professional certification model.” It’s not clear why such significant changes to the exam program are needed. The ATP website attempts to tie the ATP to the CAS strategic plan, but the connection is vague.

Regarding the second question (has sufficient input from membership been obtained?): Broad member input has not been sought, and it’s not clear that the consulting firm assisting with this initiative has extensive experience with the actuarial profession.

Len Llaguno

Yes, I believe the CAS has made a good effort to communicate the Admissions Transformation Plan and is actively engaging with the community to vet changes. Implementing a change on this scale is an on-going effort, and I trust that the CAS will continue to seek input from membership and proactively communicate changes.

However, I understand that a change of this magnitude is difficult, particularly for students in the exam process. It will be important for the CAS to deeply consider their experience and roll out changes with this in mind.

Amber Rohde

From my understanding, there was/is a task force of expert volunteers brought together to form the plan for the framework that is ATP. Its intent is to be a vehicle for transparency and a thoughtful approach to future changes. Not everything is laid out yet in terms of what will happen and when. I was not a member on that task force; my first glimpse was at a CAS volunteer leadership conference. At the conference, a number of Members were able to get an early glimpse of the plans and provide feedback to the volunteers and staff running this project, mainly around the importance of communication and transparency.

As a Board member, however, I would pursue an answer to this question from day 1, since the ATP is the framework which is intended to be a critical component leading to our desired future state. I’d refer you back to questions 4 and 5 for a bit more of my views on how the Board could seek input and increase transparency with the Members.

David Skurnick

The ATP has not had adequate explanation and member input. The exams are probably the most important function performed by the CAS. They describe the skills and knowledge that an actuary must possess, and they confirm actuaries’ competence. Therefore. a major change in the exam structure requires the highest level of care.

The Admissions Transformation Plan is vague. The explanatory material essentially says that ATP will be a major shift and promises that it will be a big improvement. A great many questions remain. Why do the syllabus and exams need a radical change? What are the ultimate objectives?

What sort of changes are contemplated? Is the ATP merely change for the sake of change? Would it be better to make gradual changes over time?

Given the importance of ATP, the membership should be fully informed and involved at every stage of the process.

Frank H. Chang

Yes, as long as there’s a DEI problem, the CAS should have a DEI strategy. Initiatives should seek to improve the demographic imbalance in the membership.

Having a DEI staff person is useful for promoting dialogue, gathering data, and addressing issues.

Note, in my answer to question 5, the CEO has authority to make hires to address strategic goals set by the Board.

Steve Belden

I believe that certain minorities are underrepresented in our membership and that we would be stronger if the profession were more open and attractive to them. We have been working on the diversity, equity and inclusion issue on and off for as long as I have been an actuary. We have not made much progress doing the same thing in the same way so I think it is very appropriate to explicitly have a DEI strategy, specific initiatives and staff members who work on DEI.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

I support outreach efforts in recruitment and fostering an environment that is respectful of all people along with mentorship programs like the CAS Student Central Summer Program. My preference would be to have equity dropped from any initiatives. Initiatives should continue to be handled within the Committee structure of the CAS and the Actuarial Foundation.

John Gleba

The board of an organization exists to set strategic goals and the overall direction of the organization. How and in what manner those goals are implemented and achieved is an operational task that is accomplished by the staff and executive leadership. With that distinction in mind:

1. Should the CAS have a DEI strategy? From a macro standpoint, there is nothing wrong with the concept of having a diversity, equity, and inclusion policy. As with most things, though, the devil is in the details and how the policy is developed and communicated to the membership. Do I believe the DEI policy has had sufficient membership input? Probably not, at least not until fairly recently and even then the process was not optimal. Do I think the CAS has done a decent job communicating these issues to its members? No. In fact, some communications from the CAS on this topic have been off putting and condescending to the membership in my opinion. Do I think the DEI policy is perfect and doesn’t need any revision? No. There is always room for improvement and if I’m lucky enough to be on the board, I want to work to improve the process and be more receptive to the opinions and needs of our membership

2. Should the CAS have specific DEI initiatives? Again, the devil is in the details. DEI initiatives are not necessarily bad or good things, but their development and implementation should reflect opinions from all of the major stakeholders, including CAS members, employers, regulators, and the public. There is substantial room for improvement in this area and I want to work to make this process more transparent.

3. Should the CAS have staff members working on those initiatives? Whether or not the CAS has a DEI staff person (or any staff position for that matter) is an operational decision made by staff leadership based on the resources they need to implement the board’s strategic policy.

Alan M. Hines

9a – Should the CAS have a DEI strategy: Yes – but I believe that the CAS DEI strategy should be focused on the analytics used to evaluate DEI issues. DEI is one of the most prominent topics discussed by businesses, their boards and at all levels of government (Federal, State and Local). This is a growing D&O liability and employer’s liability risk, putting this topic under the CAS umbrella. Our profession has the opportunity to take a leadership role on this issue, use our analytic skills to evaluate DEI in an unbiased statistical manner, and affect positive change.

If you watched my video, I alluded to the CAS “owning space” where our actuaries have worked. Our profession is uniquely positioned because we have well defined standards of practice that other data scientists and statisticians do not. Statistics are being misused and abused to support political agendas. Models are being developed in all industries, by people that have no professional standards and many of these models include no controls to ensure that they are not unfairly discriminatory. The CAS is well positioned to produce unbiased statistics and methods to evaluate DEI issues and enhance the professionalism underlying the work being performed in this space.

However, the CAS should remain an organization that provides unbiased analytics on all issues. The CAS should not be advancing political agendas or advocating social programs that promote subsidies or provide benefits to one group of individuals at the exclusion of others.

9b – Should CAS Staff be working on DEI initiatives. CAS staff should be performing the operational activities to run the “business” of the CAS and perform the tasks assigned by the Board. Sometimes these tasks may include assisting the Board with projects related to their strategic plan. Any Board assigned task related to DEI initiatives should continue under the guidance of the Board.

Many large corporations are creating HR roles dedicated to DEI. However, the CAS does not employ enough staff to warrant such a position. Issues related to admission and CAS policy should be the responsibility of the membership, not CAS staff. Similarly, there has always been a separation of duties between the CAS and AAA. The AAA has historically been responsible for statements of public policy and other social issues, while the CAS has historically been focused on unbiased analytics in our core specialties. Assuming this dichotomy of duties still exists, it would be more appropriate for the AAA to have staff working on DEI initiatives related to social policy.

Julie Lederer

One can have opinions on the content of the DEI strategy and opinions on the process by which that strategy was developed. Though I offered opinions on the content during the public comment period (as referenced in an earlier response), my opinions on the process are more relevant to my board candidacy.

And that process was problematic. Members were not kept adequately informed of the strategy while it was under development. Nor were members allowed to provide comments until after the strategy was released and some members raised concerns.

Given the lack of transparency that surrounded its development, the significance of the endeavor, and the concerns raised after its release, the DEI strategy should be put to a vote of the members: 1) keep the strategy as is, 2) modify the strategy, or 3) do away with the strategy. If option 2 gets the most votes, the CAS will have a significant project at hand. This will require open calls and public exposures, with extensive time and effort expended by CAS staff to assist with the collection of comments. The transparent NAIC process could serve as a guide.

Len Llaguno

I believe DEI is critical to the future of our profession. The CAS’s DEI strategy, initiatives and staff are therefore important for the future of the CAS.

Amber Rohde

I believe CAS should have a DEI strategy, a strong team both leading and monitoring our progress, and a series of specific initiatives that we are pursuing.

Diverse and inclusive communities are more creative, engaged, and produce stronger business results. Diversity in our pool of candidates will only enhance our profession in the long-run and support continued growth in our profession. The CAS having a strong point person or team for diversity initiatives is appropriate to assure that we accomplish what we set out to do: that we stay focused and that the impacts of our efforts are maximized.

Regarding the initiatives, those laid out by the CAS are reasonable. They align with our Constitution and while wording has changed around the initiatives, the goals have not changed materially since laid out in the CAS Proceedings in 1976 (see FAQ link below). You can find initiatives and more about CAS DE&I strategy here: https://www.casact.org/about/diversity-equity-inclusion. In addition, you can find more information here – FAQ. Of the initiatives laid out by the CAS, I particularly align with those around enhancing awareness and addressing financial accessibility of our credentialing process, as I believe these efforts can be quite impactful. I have been actively involved in the awareness component; it was one of the reasons for forming the Network of Actuarial Women and Allies (NAWA). I also believe it’s important we increase our efforts on resume/CV/interview prep for those who did/do not have access to good programs at their schools (Diversity Network partners have been working on this as well).

David Skurnick

The CAS should not have any full-time staff people or a department designated to deal with DEI initiatives. The CAS has no discrimination problems. Anyone who passes the exams becomes a member. Not only is a full-time DEI specialist a waste of money, a DEI specialist could have too much invested in finding DEI problems even if no such problems actually exist.

A strategy or initiative to try to increase minority membership is a worthwhile aim. However, there should not be numerical goals. The CAS does not choose its members. Thus, the CAS cannot control who chooses to become a casualty actuary.

Frank H. Chang

I do not know the CAS to be affiliated to any political identity group nor do I feel that the CAS should make issues political when they don’t need to be.

This question seems like an interpretation of a specific proposal and I would encourage concerned members to reach out about their concerns with the proposal directly so we can get to the heart of the matter.

I’ve hesitated for several questions, but feel I also need to address something directly. Every member of the CAS I’ve had the pleasure to meet is sincere, even if they are opinionated, and even if those opinions are different than mine. I’d encourage us to assume good intent first. I love the CAS and we can do more together if we aim to collaborate rather than assume ill intent of our fellow members and our staff.

Steve Belden

CAS members may have a role in determining if a subsidization is occurring and the impact of that subsidization but the CAS should not be in the role of unilaterally changing our ratemaking principles. The CAS Constitution states that “No opinion with respect to questions of public interest shall be publicly expressed by, or on behalf of, the Casualty Actuarial Society, except on matters within the special professional competence of actuaries and then only with an affirmative vote of three-fourths of all members of the Board of Directors.” Unilaterally making changes to our ratemaking principles in this way I believe would be a violation of this constitutional directive.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No, the ratemaking principles do not need to be changed. The Statement of Principles (Other Influences), in combination with ASOP 12 Considerations covers these types of questions.

Other Influences: The impact of external influences on the expected future experience should be considered. Considerations include the judicial environment, regulatory and legislative changes, guaranty funds, economic variables, and residual market mechanisms including subsidies of residual market rate deficiencies.

John Gleba

Ratemaking has not been my area of expertise so I am hesitant to make any definitive statements about subsidization or the associated political issues. However, as a board member, I will work to ensure any changes to the ratemaking principles are transparent, clearly communicated to the membership and other affected stakeholders, and all comments and suggestions are addressed in the final proposal.

Alan M. Hines

This question has been debated by our society for years. In every instance to date, our methods and techniques were based on expected costs and compliance with insurance regulations – both of which are objective and measurable. The CAS has never proposed a solution to incorporate social “equity” or subsidies into our methods and techniques. Social equity that involves subsidies are best implemented by government regulations. However, as the analytics using big data continue to evolve, we need to reevaluate our ratemaking principles to ensure compliance with insurance regulations.

I have been fortunate enough to work with businesses and government on both sides of the debate. Some of my professional experiences, noted below, will allow me to guide the CAS as we continue to evaluate this issue.

• I have worked with companies to revise their classification plans when the government revised its regulations on the type of data that may be used.
• I have worked on the Massachusetts Automobile residual market program that dealt with market disruptions created by government subsidies built into the ratemaking process.
• When credit scores were first introduced to insurance, I performed market conduct exams and provided training to State regulators and the CAS membership on the disparate impact from the use of credit scores in underwriting and ratemaking.

Julie Lederer

No. Given the wording in many states’ rating laws, such a change would have limited practical impact.

Missouri has rating statutes that prohibit unfair discrimination. In Missouri, for most types of property and casualty risks (other than auto and workers’ compensation), this means that the “use of rates which unfairly discriminate between risks having essentially the same hazard and having substantially the same degree of protection” is prohibited (379.318, Rsmo). For workers’ compensation, “[unfair] discrimination exists if, after allowing for practical limitations, price differentials fail to reflect equitably the differences in expected losses and expenses” (287.950, Rsmo). In short, a rate has to be commensurate with the risk.

Other states have similar rating statutes. Therefore, even if the CAS were to change the ratemaking principles to allow certain groups to subsidize others, insurers could run afoul of rating laws if they incorporated such principles into their rates and attempted to disaggregate price from risk.

Len Llaguno

I don’t believe the CAS should change its ratemaking principles.

Amber Rohde

I do not see a need to change the CAS ratemaking principles as they relate to cross-subsidies and discrimination. I do see a need and an opportunity for us to use our technical capabilities and problem-solving skills to uncover actual reasons for differences in claim frequency and claim severity across different populations.

David Skurnick

Rates should never attempt to subsidize any identity groups.

Frank H. Chang

Yes, Article VI of the CAS by-laws allows the CAS to be able to submit complaints they receive to the ABCD.

Steve Belden

Ability to bring complaints to the ABCD should not be restricted to the actuaries. If a non-actuary sees something that needs to be reported they should do so. It is up to the ABCD to distinguish between the complaints that have merit and those that don’t. If they deem the complaints to be in violation of the Code of Conduct they will act accordingly.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No.

John Gleba

Without commenting on the merits of the specific ABCD complaint that is the basis for this question, according to the ABCD rules of procedure, anyone can make a complaint, regardless of where they are employed. If the issue is not actuarial in nature, then the ABCD will state so and dismiss the case. Criminality is beyond the scope of the ABCD’s jurisdiction. The ABCD has traditionally deferred acting on complaints if the subject actuary is also subject to criminal proceedings.

The crux of the question here is whether it is appropriate for a CAS staff person to file a complaint against a CAS member. Every situation is different and should be judged on its own merits. I can see instances where this would be appropriate (and in fact, am aware of one specific instance where this did occur), but I can also see where this could create a conflict depending on the circumstances. One would hope that these situations would be very rare.

My hope is that by working towards increased transparency and improving communications with the membership regarding future board strategies and operational decisions, we can eliminate any potential discord between members and the CAS staff and work together towards common goals.

Alan M. Hines

Yes – The ABCD is an essential value proposition for the CAS. Our professionalism is what separates us from statisticians, data scientists, and other very intelligent people creating models for businesses. The CAS has a code of professional conduct that extends beyond “actuarial” and “criminal” matters. I am also in favor of developing training programs for CAS staff so that they understand how to handle these matters when they believe a member has violated our code of professional conduct.

Julie Lederer

This question includes multiple subparts:

1) Who can submit a complaint?: Anyone (CAS staff or otherwise) can submit a complaint to the ABCD if he or she believes the actuary may have committed a material violation of the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) (see http://www.abcdboard.org/complaints/).

2) Against whom can a complaint be submitted?: A complaint can be submitted against anyone subject to the Code. This would include CAS members, as the CAS has adopted the Code.

3) Can the complaint be based on non-actuarial or non-criminal matters?: Precept 1 of the Code is broad, saying that “[an] Actuary shall act honestly, with integrity and competence, and in a manner to fulfill the profession’s responsibility to the public and to uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession.”

Len Llaguno

I believe that ABCD complaints should focus on violations of the Code of Professional Conduct. If a non-actuarial or non-criminal matter is perceived to be a violation of the Code of Professional Conduct, then it is reasonable to submit a complaint to the ABCD. If it is not, then I don’t believe it’s within the scope of the ABCD.

Amber Rohde

As is the case today under ABCD rules, any human being should be able to file a complaint against an Actuary.

And, as also is the case today, it is appropriate and expected that not all complaints filed will be of criminal and/or actuarial work nature. For example, a violation of the Code of Conduct applies to many non-criminal matters. Precept 1, Annotation 1-4 specifically states, “An Actuary shall not engage in any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or commit any act that reflects adversely on the actuarial profession.”

Finally, if someone is filing a complaint that they believe to be justified, then that is what the system the profession created is there for. Any individual can consult with the ABCD before filing a formal complaint. If a complaint is filed, it is up to the ABCD to decide whether the complaint is just or not; no one should be prevented, discouraged, or intimidated to blow the whistle if they observe behavior they believe warrants an ABCD review and intervention.

David Skurnick

The CAS staff should not be able to submit ABCD complaints. The ABCD is designed to deal with professional matters. CAS staff should deal with administrative matters.

Frank H. Chang

Requiring members to meet learning objectives is not an unfair barrier.

However, the exams may be and it is worth understanding how. As a specific example, many years ago, there was a push in a joint exam committee to increase the purity of learning objective testing (i.e. remove questions which had actuarial material + knowledge about something else). This resulted in also removing unnecessary cultural context which would be an unfair barrier to international and other students. To the extent that we can make improvements to our exams to increase fairness of testing, we should - these should be actuarial tests, not actuarial + cultural tests.

Steve Belden

We are not perfect in the way we design and deliver our exams. When we have flaws in our process we try to fix them quickly. We need to periodically look at our exams to make sure that they are as equitable as we can make them and that they properly identify those who are proficient. We also want to use a critical eye on the structure and process to see if there are better ways of testing the candidates’ abilities and proficiencies. What worked for our generation may not work in today’s environment. In short, I believe our exams are not an unfair barrier but we need to continually test and update them to assure they do not become one.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No, they are a “barrier” to entry similar to other professional qualifications that need to be met to achieve certain designations, such as CPA, CFA, MD.

John Gleba

I do not believe the exams are an unfair barrier to membership. The barriers to membership occur before one even gets to the exam process, and that starts with having an awareness of the actuarial profession in general, and then later, with the ability and economic resources to participate in the exam process itself.

Alan M. Hines

No. The processes I am familiar with to develop the exam syllabus, create exam questions, administer the exams, grade the exams, and establish a passing score is the most fair and unbiased admission process that exists. However, if there have been changes to the process in recent years that have not been fully disclosed to the members, or if there have been issues raised to the CAS Board that have not been appropriately communicated to its members, I would want to specifically address those changes or issues separately.

Julie Lederer

No. The exams are the primary barrier to membership. As mentioned in another response, the rigorous exam process helps actuaries gain respect in the insurance industry and garner high salaries. Per the public comments submitted on the DEI initiative, many of my colleagues agree that maintaining the rigor of exams is critical.

Len Llaguno

I don’t believe the exams are an unfair barrier to membership. Rigorous exams are a critical part of ensuring that our members have the professional knowledge and expertise to meet market demands.

I do believe there are historically marginalized groups that are disadvantaged in their access and resources available to successfully pass exams. I am in favor of the CAS efforts to remove these disadvantages while not compromising the rigor of the exam process.

Amber Rohde

No, I don’t think the exams in themselves are an unfair barrier. I do however think there are barriers to entering the field, i.e., in the awareness, cost, and student preparation. The answer to those issues does not involve changing our exam process. They involve addressing financial burdens, lack of resume/interview prep, increasing awareness via recruiting efforts, mentoring, among other things. We should be addressing equity in opportunity, not equity in outcome. (See also my response to question #1.)

David Skurnick

The exams are completely fair. They cover material and techniques that are needed for actuarial work. Individuals pass or fail depending on their own performance.

Frank H. Chang

The CAS DEI site and FAQ has a decent exposition on the subject. My naïve summary would be equal awareness and removing unfair barriers across group underrepresented within our membership.

Steve Belden

Equity means that we treat all members with equal respect and opportunity. We can control the CAS organizational requirements and opportunities, so those are the ones where we need to focus on equity. The employers control the hiring and pay so while we may be effective in having some influence there our focus should be on what we can do within our organization.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

Equity would be having one program for exam fee waivers and stipends for exam material. If financial hardship was the determining factor for lack of representation, then it would be equitable to have a “needs-based” criteria. If the program is to get individuals exposed to the career, then it should be available to all on the same basis.

John Gleba

The CAS has given a definition of “equity” In their FAQ’s on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion strategic plan (see https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/CAS_Diversity_Equity_Inclusion-FAQs.pdf), the CAS defines equity in FAQ #2 as an acknowledgement that different people face different challenges and may need different tools to succeed.

In other words, equity implies fairness, which is how I view the concept. Equity does not mean favoring one group of people over another because of certain demographics; it means having a strategy to ensure that access to the profession is fairly available for all groups taking into account that certain groups may face different obstacles and need different incentives.

Alan M. Hines

My definition of equity is simple; it means treating all individuals fairly. Regarding membership, it means providing everyone with access and the same opportunity to pass the exams, unless otherwise required by law. Regarding other CAS policies, I will evaluate what is fair by considering how that policy will impact an individual or group, as well as the implicit implications for others, to ensure that everyone is treated the same.

Julie Lederer

My colleagues’ public comments on the DEI strategy suggest that the reference to “equity” in the strategy is one of the main sticking points. This is partly due to the varying definitions of the term, as alluded to by this question.

As I noted in a previous response, the DEI strategy should be put to a vote of the members:1) keep the strategy as-is, 2) modify the strategy, or 3) do away with the strategy.

If option 2 wins, a significant portion of our work will go towards determining what, if any, role “equity” should play in the plan, and how such a term should be defined. We should use the comments submitted on the DEI initiative to help guide the conversation.

Len Llaguno

I believe equity is about ensuring that we all have opportunity for growth and professional success. For this to happen, we need to recognize that our society exposes certain segments of the population to disadvantages that effect their access to these opportunities. Creating equity means acknowledging those disadvantages and doing our best to remove them.

Amber Rohde

The CAS has recently defined equity and explained why it’s included in the DE&I strategy. You can find the definition and explanation here in DE&I FAQ #2.

Personally, I focus on equity in opportunities, not equity in outcome. My “equity” focus is about ensuring we have a diverse slate of students who are aware of the field and exams. It’s about making sure that candidates with financial barriers to taking the exams can have those barriers lifted. It’s about making sure we have the right exam locations. It’s about mentoring students on taking exams, building resumes, and interviewing (not everyone has people in their lives or a school that can appropriately prepare them). It’s about making sure we find people who have the potential (those with and without barriers) and finding ways to increase and enhance awareness of and access to our field. This is equity in opportunity and what the E in DE&I means to me.

David Skurnick

I prefer that the ambiguous word “equity” not be used. If the word “equity” must be used, I would define it as “individual equity.” That is, if two individuals perform equally well on an exams, they will receive equal scores.

Frank H. Chang

Prior to the current CEO, we had an Executive Director for decades who was also a non-actuary. The CEO is overseen by a Board made up substantially of actuaries.

Steve Belden

The skills needed to be a CEO are not the same as the skills needed to be an FCAS. There are many actuaries who have the skills to be a CEO and it would be great if their interests and availability aligned with our needs. That said, we have had a non-actuary leading the CAS staff for a long time. I think the CEO needs to have good leadership skills and they need to understand actuaries and work well with us. They do not need to be actuaries.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

A non-actuary may be the CEO; I would not want to preclude a well-qualified actuary from being considered.

John Gleba

It is my understanding that the creation of the CEO position (to replace the previous title of Executive Director) was a deliberate decision made by the Board on the advice of, and after consultation with, outside experts regarding good governance of membership organizations. It is also my understanding regardless of the job title, the functions and duties of the current CEO are the same as the previous executive director (who also was not a CAS member).

From one perspective, I can see the argument that the CEO of an organization should be a member of that organization. For example, the CEO of the American Medical Association should be a physician and the CEO of the American Bar Association should be an attorney. On the other hand, since the primary function of the CEO (or director) is to manage the day-to-day activities of the organization in support of long-term strategic goals, I can also see the benefit of having a seasoned leadership executive with management experience who can effectively lead the organization in supporting the mission and strategic goals.

I am not concerned that the CEO of the CAS is not an actuary, as long as we continue to have CAS members involved in high level positions within the CAS (e.g., Vice Presidents) who can interact with and provide input to the CEO as they manage the daily tasks of the society.

Alan M. Hines

My view on this is contingent on the responsibilities afforded to the CEO and CAS staff. My responses to questions #3, #9b, and #17 support my belief that the role of the CAS staff is to run the business of the CAS and assist the Board with projects and assigned tasks. With that as the role of the CAS staff, there is no need for the CEO to be a member.

I do not believe that the CEO should promote or establish policy impacting the membership that is not approved by the Board and the membership.

Julie Lederer

Part of the CAS board’s responsibility is to evaluate the CEO’s performance. Regardless of whether the CEO is an actuary or not, the CEO is answerable to the actuaries on the board.

Len Llaguno

Yes, I think it’s good to have diversity in experience in the various roles at the CAS.

Amber Rohde

I believe it is fine to hire a non-actuary to serve as CEO of a large international Non-Profit, such as the CAS. I also believe it is fine to hire an actuary to serve as CEO of a large international Non-Profit. The key is to select a person who will perform the job effectively.

David Skurnick

A non-actuary should not have CEO status, because a CEO sets policy. Policy should be set by actuaries. Non-actuaries might not have enough understanding of actuarial concerns. Non-actuaries might not share the actuaries’ point of view. Also, non-actuaries might not be fully aligned with actuaries’ interests. Just as a medical doctor leads the AMA and a lawyer leads the ABA, an actuary should lead the CAS.

Frank H. Chang

My current view is that some form of merger which preserves the CAS identity and the best parts of who we are as a community makes sense. In particular, we are the only country in the world where we have to explain to candidates, prospective candidates, employers, recruiters, and other actuaries that, in the US, there are two different, often competing, sets of actuaries.

In addition, I viewed the time a few years ago as being more favorable to having such a discussion as many of the leaders across the CAS and SoA had interest in pursuing some form of combination. I do not know if there’s any interest anymore from either side after the CAS Board voted down the proposal. I haven’t heard this being brought up as a strategic priority.

Steve Belden

I was not in favor of the proposed merger because of the way it was structured. We work closely with the SOA in our shared American Academy of Actuaries governance and we rely on their exams for some of our first few qualification requirements If we were to favor a merger, the SOA would be worthy of our consideration. The attempted take-over of the CAS by the SOA several years ago soured that relationship. If a merger were to have been acceptable it would have required more of a partnership type of arrangement where we retained autonomy on our credentialing, meetings, seminars and finances.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

No.

John Gleba

I was not in favor of the proposed merger with the SOA in 2018. The CAS is the preeminent body for property/casualty actuarial education and advancement and I believe we would be in danger of being diluted or overshadowed by a larger organization such as the SOA.

Alan M. Hines

No, I was not. I did not want to dilute the value of the CAS credentials. I did not feel that there were sufficiently defined boundaries, separation of areas of expertise, or a well thought out training and qualification plan required by members crossing over to work in other fields. I was concerned that an untrained SOA member working on a P&C project, or vice versa, was no different than some other statisticians performing analytical work without the extensive training needed. The lack of expertise would result in a diminished quality of actuarial work, which would ultimately reduce the value of our credentials.

Additionally, since the SOA had two members for every one CAS member, I did not feel the CAS would have an equal voice at the table after we merged. If the concerns that the CAS members raised were properly addressed and an effort was made to resolve these issues, I may have voted differently.

Julie Lederer

No, I voted against the merger.

Len Llaguno

No, I was not in favor of the merger. I believe P&C risks are materially different from mortality risks and our members will be better suited with a professional society focused on our areas of expertise.

Amber Rohde

I voted against the proposal. I felt that the reasons to maintain a distinct CAS outweighed the benefits of merging with the SOA. I also was concerned that there was not a sufficient process and timeline for engaging CAS Members thoughtfully in considering the proposal.

My last point is key and gets back to some of the content laid out in questions #4 & #5 around the importance of timely communication and transparency from the Board. We need to focus on restoring trust with decisions proposed and made. The Board has a role to help us address the concerns that remain, so that we can more forward and focus on the future of the fundamentals within our credentialing process that hold so much importance. So, when Members go to vote during this election, I believe our votes should not be based on which candidates have the ‘correct’ positions on specific issues. Rather, we should base our votes on which candidates have the capability to work together with the rest of the Board to chart a solid course for the CAS on the full array of known and unknown issues and opportunities that lie ahead.

David Skurnick

I opposed the proposed merger with the SOA. There are a lot more life actuaries than casualty actuaries. I was concerned that the merged organization might take actions that helped life actuaries but at a cost to casualty actuaries.

Frank H. Chang

First, these rulings do impact our work, and to that extent, we will be involved.

Second, we are all part of the CAS. I’m willing to lead in the direction that would best benefit our members and express the desires of our membership and not my personal opinions. I’ve taken this same approach in my professional life and currently lead a large, diverse multinational team.

Finally, let’s aim for more empathy. If something impacts our membership, we need to try and better understand those impacted.

Steve Belden

The CAS is a professional organization and not a political one. Individuals should speak their minds if they wish but the organization should not have an advocacy role in this.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

CAS should maintain neutrality.

Do you think the CAS should be involved with and/or express opinions on social justice issues that do not directly impact actuarial work?

CAS should maintain neutrality.

John Gleba

The mission of the CAS is to advance the body of knowledge of actuarial science applied to property, casualty and similar risk exposures, to increase the awareness of actuarial science, and to contribute to the well being of society as a whole.

In addition, Article IX of the CAS constitution states, in part, “No opinion with respect to questions of public interest shall be publicly expressed by .. the Casualty Actuarial Society, except on matters within the special professional competence of actuaries…” It goes on to say that even then, there needs to be an affirmative vote of at least 75% of the Board members.

I believe strongly that the CAS should not be commenting on any social issue unless some aspect of the issue is actuarial in nature and within our competence. For example, the Academy recently issued a statement showing support for survivors of the recent gun violence in Buffalo. Last year, the CAS issued a statement expressing support for the Asian community after the murder of massage workers in Atlanta. Neither of these statements were appropriate statements to be made by a professional body since there was clearly no actuarial aspect to either of these two events. As a board member, I would not favor any public statements on social issues unless it was clear that the statement involved actuarial issues and were within our core competence.

Alan M. Hines

Personally, I am saddened by the events happening in our country and around the world today. I did not know how to respond when my daughters were devastated because their basic rights to make their own medical decisions had been taken away. I did not know how to respond when a friend told me he lost his job because he refused to inject a trial vaccine into his body. I feel empathy and compassion for the LGBTQ community that lives in fear that the Government will take away the progress that has been made to date.

Many of these issues are very divisive, with people feeling very strongly about their position on both sides of the argument. No - I do not think the CAS should be speaking on behalf of its members and expressing opinions or taking stances on political issues. Similarly, my responses to these questions are to be interpreted as my personal views and not those of the company I work for. I hope my views are shared by enough members, so that I will be voted to serve as a member of the Board.

Julie Lederer

The CAS should be silent on political issues and should not express opinions on matters that do not directly impact actuarial work. Article IX of the CAS constitution makes this clear. After raising concerns about potential violations of Article IX, members were told that certain issues were not, in fact, political. If there’s any question among reasonable people on whether an issue is political, it is.

Len Llaguno

I have my own personal opinions on many of these issues. With that said, I believe that diverse opinions and perspectives are good, and that other people will have different opinions that are valid. I don’t believe the CAS should adopt my opinions simply because I think they are right.

The CAS represents our entire community. Based on how divided the country is on many of these issues, it’s reasonable to assume the CAS community is also divided. So how should the CAS respond?

The CAS constitution and bylaws are a great first place to look. These documents outline the mission and values of the CAS. Every member that joins the CAS has implicitly agreed to the values outlined in these documents, so it’s appropriate to derive direction from them.

Given the focused nature of the CAS on actuarial issues, it’s likely hard to find clear direction on political and social issues in these documents. In situations like this, if the CAS community wants the CAS to speak out on any issue (even those outside the scope of its mission and values), then I think that’s a debate that should take place. Debate is good, and I think it’s the responsibility of the board to encourage debate on any topic that is important to our community. I think it’s the responsibility of everyone in our membership to ensure that our debates remain civil and respectful.

Amber Rohde

First, there’s a difference between offering a political opinion and creating an inclusive environment. A Non-Profit can comment on current events without expressing a political view. In fact, I think it is good for Non-Profits to do so when various members, and/or the work they do, are impacted.

For example, in the George Floyd post from the CAS, comments such as “we can foster a diverse and inclusive environment that makes us stronger as an actuarial community, and as a society”, and “To all of our CAS community, whether you are staying at home or standing in solidarity, stay healthy and stay safe” are justified and I feel appreciated to those impacted. It recognizes that members may be having a tough time and the community should recognize that.

Should the CAS take a stance as to whether a political decision was the right one - typically no. But we certainly might comment on actuarial issues that are affected by the decision. And the CAS might, for example in the case of Roe vs Wade, acknowledge/report the decision and note that many of our stakeholders, and even the actuarial work they do, may be impacted in some way or another.

David Skurnick

The CAS Constitution says, “No opinion with respect to questions of public interest shall be publicly expressed by, or on behalf of, the Casualty Actuarial Society, except on matters within the special professional competence of actuaries and then only with an affirmative vote of three-fourths of all members of the Board of Directors.”

As a matter of principle, we should follow our Constitution. If we don’t like it, we should amend it. We should not ignore it.

Even if this standard were not in the Constitution, I would support it. Casualty actuaries have expertise only in our professional field. When a public issue involves our special expertise, that’s the kind of issue on which the CAS should get involved.

The CAS should not take positions on social or political issues, because:

1. Lack of expertise: The CAS as an organization has no particular expertise on this type of issue.
2. Member disagreement: These issues are often controversial. The CAS should avoid public positions that many of its members oppose.
3. No actuarial benefit: When the CAS takes a position on a social or political issue, that does nothing to benefit actuaries.
4. Unimportance: The CAS is too tiny to have a significant impact on such issues.

Frank H. Chang

The Board should be strategic. Important issues and decisions should come before the Board.

Steve Belden

The Board needs to focus on the strategic direction. It needs to be aware of the day-to-day operational decisions as they affect the achievement of the strategic goals. They can decide to dig deeper into the day-to-day operations if they believe there is a real need. Otherwise they should let the decisions be handled by the operational leadership of the CAS, which is currently a partnership between staff and volunteers.

Carolyn (Coe) Bergh

Role. The principal role of the Board is to:

1. Set policy;
2. Set strategic direction;
3. Establish, review, and monitor long term plans; and
4. Ensure that the appropriate financial and operational controls are in place.
5. Maintain active contact with the membership in such a way to assure that all of its work is consistent with the membership views on various issues.

It is my understanding that the BOD is involved in the operational decisions through the Executive Council that reports to the BOD. As long as the Executive Council Vice Presidents are actuaries and they continue to retain those activities that may not be delegated, this is acceptable and has worked well for the CAS during my tenure with the CAS.

John Gleba

The board of an organization exists to set strategic goals and the overall direction of the organization. The executive leadership and staff make day-to-day operational decisions.

As noted in the position description for the Board of Directors, (https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/board.pdf), the roles of the Board are to:

a) Set policy;
b) Set strategic direction
c) Establish, review, and monitor long term plans; and
d) Ensure that the appropriate financial and operational controls are in place.

I believe this framework continues to be appropriate and best practice for the governance of the society.

Alan M. Hines

I believe that the role of the CAS Board is to establish strategic direction and provide oversight for the CAS staff. The CAS staff should be responsible for executing the day-to-day business operations, not the Board. The CAS Board should take corrective actions if the operations are not performed in an acceptable manner.

Julie Lederer

Even if I believed that the board should be involved in day-to-day operations or in all decisions made by the CAS, that’s not practical. Most board members have full-time jobs and are using personal time to volunteer for the board.

Len Llaguno

I believe the CAS board should focus on strategic direction rather than day-to-day operations. Many of the day-to-day operational components of the CAS require non-actuarial skills and are better suited for professionals with those skills.

Amber Rohde

I believe there is a healthy balance to strike. The main focus should really be on strategic direction.

Major tactical initiatives and significant investments that will be used in pursuit of the strategy should also be reviewed with the Board for their input. The Board should not be involved in day-to-day decisions.

David Skurnick

I believe the Board of Directors should not be involved in day-to-day decisions or involved in all decisions.

However, I think the Board needs to be more pro-active. Too often, the Board has merely rubber-stamped decisions made by others.