ASA vote

[kazh]

Candidates: Are you in favor of ASA voting rights in SOA elections? Should ASAs be permitted to hold SOA office? What do you intend to do about it?

[yanz]

Candidates: Are you in favor of ASA voting rights in SOA elections? Should ASAs be permitted to hold SOA office? What do you intend to do about it?
IMO - yes
IMO - no
nothing
:tup:

[Double High C]

yanz, you are correct.

Are you Captain Kirk? Or one of the other 2 guys?

[yanz]

I keep misunderstanding "candidate" to mean exam candidate vs. election candidate. :oops: stupid exams.

carry on.

[Take 2]

I keep misunderstanding "candidate" to mean exam candidate vs. election candidate. :oops: stupid exams.

carry on. Your opinions are just as valuable. They're just not relevant to the thread. Prep for your later candidacy?

[yanz]

Your opinions are just as valuable. They're just not relevant to the thread. Prep for your later candidacy?

nah - no offense to any of you [actual election] canditates, I have no interest in having a hand in running any aspect of the organization whatsoever.

[Mary Hardy]

Candidates: Are you in favor of ASA voting rights in SOA elections? Should ASAs be permitted to hold SOA office? What do you intend to do about it?

1. Yes. Associates pay (non-trivial) dues, have various rights and responsibilities of membership, and are correctly viewed as credentialled actuaries. Many play a very important role in the profession. We should encourage their engagement.

2. No (though I'd be prepared to hear arguments in favour). I still think that Fellowship is a deeper level of commitment to the profession, and should be a pre-requisite for the senior leadership roles.

3. This issue will come back to the Board in a year or two. When it does, I will support it strongly within the Board and, if it comes to a membership vote, outside. I will be a strong advocate for Associate's rights.

The Board needs to let enough time pass since the last referendum that the membership doesn't feel aggrieved at the repetition, and, if there is agreement to try again, we need to try to establish how to address the concerns of the substantial minority who voted against the motion last time. We might do this by surveying the membership to ensure that we know what the concerns are. Then, we can adjust the proposal (eg enfranchise only 10-year ASAs not 5-year) or improve our communications if it looks like we can gain the necessary majority through a better explanation of why the Board feels this would be the right thing to do, if, in fact, it does. Which it probably will.

[bdschobel]

Mary Hardy is right, as usual. Just to fill in some historical holes: The Board voted unanimously in 2003 to change the Bylaws to allow 5-year ASAs to vote in Board elections (they can vote in section elections already). A letter signed by all Board members was sent to all voters and published in SOA newsletters. We thought that the case was persuasive, and, in fact, 63 percent of the voters agreed. But the proposal required two-thirds approval to pass, so it failed -- by about 90 votes! Afterward, people told us that the proposal would have passed if we had limited the vote to 10-year ASAs. Who knows?

I would like to bring this back fairly soon, but the immediate issue on our agenda is updating the Bylaws. The FSAs will be asked to approve new Bylaws in this year's election. Once again, we need two-thirds approval, so please vote early and often -- and tell all your friends to do the same. :)

Bruce

[JMO]

Bruce, I once voted against a Bylaws revision because it contained a change to the horrible neologism "chairperson." It passed in spite of me, and I have never voted against a revision since then. (Yes, I was among the 63%.)

[Double High C]

Why is "chairperson" so horrible?????????

[JMO]

Why is "chairperson" so horrible?????????
Because when my mother did committee work, "Madame Chairman" was the term. If it was good enough for Mom, it was good enough for me. Anyway, I have mellowed since then, and they can call their committee chairs whatever they want to.

[Take 2]

Bylaws sound so bland. :yawn: An exciting change would help. Is there something in the proposed revision that's noteworthy? :popcorn:

[JMO]

I was assuming that the bylaw changes relate to the new structure where sections have more responsibility for the activities of the SOA than ever before. There are probably some technical changes regarding to the whole governance process.

[Double High C]

Bylaws remind me of lodges (like the Water Buffaloes).

[campbell]

I propose a bylaw change where those heading committees be termed "Poobahs" and the President of the SOA be the "Grand Poobah". (Disclosure: I once was a co-poobah in a high school club.)

----

Since the vote on ASA voting was held 4 years ago, I don't think it's too soon to bring it up again. I assume the way things work it wouldn't be put up in front of the voting SOA members until 2008 anyway.

[JMO]

Honcho would be another good title. I knew somebody with that title once - he was self-employed.

[Brad Gile]

Honcho would be another good title. I knew somebody with that title once - he was self-employed.

Ah, yes! Mr. Hawley, I believe? :smile:


Brad

[JMO]

Ah, yes! Mr. Hawley, I believe? :smile:


Brad
We always called him Mr. Doug, but that's another story.

Before he went into the consulting line, he always claimed that programming was not a good thing for an actuary to do.

[dhyamamoto]

I was on the board that put the ASA voting rights on the ballot so yes I was and still am in favor of having ASAs vote. I haven't thought of it much but I don't see why ASAs couldn't be eligible to run for office. I think conventional wisdom is that ASAs don't have the experience to be an effective leader but that's why we have an election in the first place--to democratically select effective leaders.

[Cecil Bykerk]

I will echo Mary Hardy's comments completely. I could write more but I couldn't say it better. Cecil Bykerk

[Take 2]

Notice the times on those candidate posts. They all work Bruce Schobel's hours = "all the time." ;)

[JMO]

Notice the times on those candidate posts. They all work Bruce Schobel's hours = "all the time." ;)
Maybe they don't post from work. Just sayin' ;)

[dhyamamoto]

Trust me, nobody works Bruce's hours except Bruce.

[bdschobel]

They aren't my hours: They belong to everybody!!! :)

Bruce

[urysohn]

I haven't thought of it much but I don't see why ASAs couldn't be eligible to run for office.
The basic reasoning, as presented in the discussion surrounding the proposal at the time, is that an ASA in office would hold some sway over the E&E rules which could in turn make it easier for ASAs to gain fellowshp. Basic (appearance of) conflict of interest sort of thing.

[bdschobel]

Another reason is that we want people to complete the basic education and become FSAs. To the extent that ASAs can do anything FSAs can do, that works against us.

Bruce

[_BullDog_]

Another reason is that we want people to complete the basic education and become FSAs. To the extent that ASAs can do anything FSAs can do, that works against us.

Bruce

Got to get those higher dues, right. :wink:

[JMO]

Got to get those higher dues, right. :wink:

Not the point. 5 year ASAs pay the same dues as FSAs. Just sayin':guitar:

[Double High C]

The basic reasoning, as presented in the discussion surrounding the proposal at the time, is that an ASA in office would hold some sway over the E&E rules which could in turn make it easier for ASAs to gain fellowshp. Basic (appearance of) conflict of interest sort of thing.

IMO, that is a very valid reason, and IMO, far superior to the following:

Another reason is that we want people to complete the basic education and become FSAs. To the extent that ASAs can do anything FSAs can do, that works against us.

The reason a person should become an FSA should be self evident; blocking access to certain perks merely to boost up the FSA/ASA differential is not something that anyone should support. If this is the only way to boost this differential, then its intrinsic value is zero.

OTOH, if one argues that the officeholder, especially the the highest officer, the President should have the highest level of actuarial branding (which the FSA does, and the ASA does not), then I agree.

(This is not to say that all FSAs are better - or even "fuller actuaries" - than all ASAs. I strongly disagree with that assertion.)

[_BullDog_]

Not the point. 5 year ASAs pay the same dues as FSAs. Just sayin':guitar:

Guess I forgot to use the sarcastic font......

[White Castle]

Not the point. 5 year ASAs pay the same dues as FSAs. Just sayin':guitar:

No taxation without representation! Time to dump tea into Boston harbor.

[ajstudies]

No taxation without representation! Time to dump tea into Boston harbor.

Or the lake maybe? How far is Schaumburg from the lake anyway? :tfh: :lol:

Seriously though, it's hard to get too bent out of shape over something that my company pays for me. I don't think the differential is breaking the bank. :shrug:

[Double High C]

Or the lake maybe? How far is Schaumburg from the lake anyway? :tfh: :lol:

Seriously though, it's hard to get too bent out of shape over something that my company pays for me. I don't think the differential is breaking the bank. :shrug:

You've missed the point.

[JMO Fan]

Or the lake maybe? How far is Schaumburg from the lake anyway? about 25 miles
:tfh: :lol:

Seriously though, it's hard to get too bent out of shape over something that my company pays for me. I don't think the differential is breaking the bank. :shrug:

The American Revolution was not just about tea tax. :shake2:

[dhyamamoto]

The basic reasoning, as presented in the discussion surrounding the proposal at the time, is that an ASA in office would hold some sway over the E&E rules which could in turn make it easier for ASAs to gain fellowshp. Basic (appearance of) conflict of interest sort of thing.

That's a good point but if it were limited to career ASAs, that would take care of that. Things may start getting complicated if they decide to start taking exams after getting into office but there has been a precedent where we had an ASA staff member who was asked to leave the room when exam issues were discussed.

[bdschobel]

The Board can ask a staff member to leave the room (obviously), but a Board member has to self-identify a conflict of interest and recuse himself or herself. Leaving the room (or any other remedy) is up to the Board member. It's a trickier situation. Personally, I prefer to restrict Board membership to FSAs (i.e., current rules). But it is interesting to explore the hypothetical situation of taking another path.

It's really good to see Dale here at the Actuarial Outpost! I hope that people ask more questions. That's how the voters (and future voters!) get to know the candidates.

Bruce

[Cecil Bykerk]

I have friends who are career Associates who I would stack up against almost any Fellow with respect to actuarial knowledge and ability. Being a Fellow doesn't mean they are necessarily better than a given Associate particularly with respect to a given topic or subject. And as I stated before I believe that career Associates should have a vote. The exact point in time that we can deem them to be career Associates remains to be determined. In my mind, clearly 10 years would work but I would consider a shorter period of time as well.

That being said, serving at the Board level as part of the governance body is a different matter. I would encourage individuals to get their education credentials rather than serving on the Board. I have encouraged individuals who have worked for me along the same lines. If you are not an FSA, you are just not taken as seriously as if you are. Careers get deadended as a result. Are there exceptions? Yes, but they are exceptions not the norm.