AAA To Fill Slot?

[echo]

http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2009/8/Pages/AAA-To-Fill-Slot.aspx

By NU ONLINE NEWS SERVICE
Published 8/28/2009

The American Academy of Actuaries says Bruce Schobel is no longer its president-elect.

John Parks, president of the AAA, Washington, has asked the group’s nominating committee to fill the vacancy, the group says.

Schobel was named president-elect of the AAA in October 2008.

The AAA is giving no further information about the president-elect vacancy. Schobel says he is not yet able to comment on the change.

[remilard]

Well Cecil already warned Bruce that he wasn't allowed to have an opinion on FEM.

[cubs1969]

Since there was nothing forthcoming yesterday, let's speculate. It was suggested to Bruce that his postings on the board (and other behaviors not known to us) reflected "adversely on the actuarial profession" and that he needed to stop. When he didn't, he was invited to be counseled by the ABCD. When that didn't work he was offerred the choice of resigning as president-elect or face discipline. He chose the former. Any other conspiracy theories out there?

[Wag, the Dog]

Nice try. But no cigar. This began in late Spring when 19 former AAA presidents petitioned the AAA board.

[PhildeAssociate]

Nice try. But no cigar. This began in late Spring when 19 former AAA presidents petitioned the AAA board.

Dear Wag, the Dog,

When is late spring? Do you think Bruce's opposition of Canada FEM was secret until August 2nd?

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[mlschop]

If this thread had a better title, there would be more posts in here speculating. Hell - I only came into this thread now because I was bored. Didn't realize Bruce was removed (or resigned?) from AAA President-Elect position.

[Angstrom]

Nice try. But no cigar. This began in late Spring when 19 former AAA presidents petitioned the AAA board.

???

Seriously? What would drive this?

[American Psycho]

Wag knows what he knows.

The XPresidents were active beginning in June. On August 5 the AAA board voted to remove Bruce from PE. I am not sure if I can tell you the vote count because I got in trouble before.

I have asked the mods to repost my posts. They were timely and truthful. Now the will merely be truthful.

[SirVLCIV]

I guess the old truism has something to it: the less important the organization, the more violent its politics can be.

Why someone would voluntarily get involved is beyond me. Given no one in my company is involved in the AAA, SOA, etc., I'm not the only one.

[cubs1969]

Where in the by-laws http://www.actuary.org/yearbook/2009/bylaws.pdf does it allow the board to remove the president-elect from office? I see where they have the right to select the president-elect but there's nothing about removing the president-elect.

[Wag, the Dog]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3857917&postcount=46

[Brad Gile]

Where in the by-laws http://www.actuary.org/yearbook/2009/bylaws.pdf does it allow the board to remove the president-elect from office? I see where they have the right to select the president-elect but there's nothing about removing the president-elect.

Coup d' Etat in the AAA? Unbelievable. The stench is amazing now.
ETA: I just saw Jeremy's post above. The board, rather than the membership, has ultimate power? If this holds, I, for one, will resign my 30 years in the AAA.

[Wag, the Dog]

The Board, not the members elected him. That's why they can remove him.

[exactuary]

I am more concerned that the board can elect than that the board can remove

[Brad Gile]

I am more concerned that the board can elect than that the board can remove
Amen, brother.

[Will Durant]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3857917&postcount=46
Note that this is a quote from the Illinois law governing non-profit corporations, not the AAA bylaws.

[Wag, the Dog]

Note that this is a quote from the Illinois law governing non-profit corporations, not the AAA bylaws.now read the bylaws carefully

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

now read the bylaws carefully

IV.5 appears to give the Board essentially unfettered power to have "...powers and to do all such acts and things as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Academy."

[Brad Gile]

now read the bylaws carefully

Stop playing footsie. You are enjoying this, aren't you?

[Wag, the Dog]

I am truly sorry. I was not teasing.

CE is right that the board powers are close to unlimited but the section is III.5 not IV.5 as he said. Importantly, however, one should read III.5 A.

Hopre this helps. No teasing.

[Brad Gile]

I am truly sorry. I was not teasing.

CE is right that the board powers are close to unlimited but the section is III.5 not IV.5 as he said. Importantly, however, one should read III.5 A.

Hopre this helps. No teasing.

Thanks. No harm, no foul. :smile:

[Smurf]

Bill Cosby to Theo: "Son, I put you on this earth. I can take you out."

[cubs1969]

Since you don't lose your AAA membership due to being convicted of securities fraud, we can only assume that Bruce did something worse than that.

[Gandalf]

Since you don't lose your AAA membership due to being convicted of securities fraud, we can only assume that Bruce did something worse than that.You can assume whatever you want. Since, as far as I know, there is no indication Bruce lost his AAA membership and is still listed as an MAAA in the directory on the SOA website, your assumption seems like quite a stretch.

[exactuary]

I am unaware, but willing to be enlightened, in re: MAAA's who remain after committing (and being convicted or entering guilty pleas) securities fraud.

AAA bylaws cover the removal of a member (Article IX.E). Bruce has not lost his MAAA.

[cubs1969]

I know Bruce hasn't lost his MAAA. James Stanard and Ronald Ferguson committed securities fraud. They're still AAA members. I was pointing out (should have been in red) that Bruce must have done something really bad because the AAA doesn't view securities fraud as a bad thing.

[QQQ]

As a member of the Academy, I should probably know this. How is the Board of the Academy chosen?

[tbakos]

As a member of the Academy, I should probably know this. How is the Board of the Academy chosen?

Per Article III (1) of the Academy Bylaws:

The Board shall consist of 29 Directors, comprising the nine Officers, the two immediate Past Presidents, and 18 elected Directors.

These 29 are broken into categories with election, duties, and terms as defined below:

Special Directors (8 ): Election by majority vote of Board
Represent other U.S. actuarial organizations
2 year term
Regular Directors (10 ): Election by members (except majority vote of Board fills vacancy)
No special duties
3 year term
Officer Directors (9): Election by majority vote of Board
Duties as specified in Bylaws or by tradition assigned by Board
Consists of:
President-Elect – with, effectively, 2 year term
President – effectively, 2nd year of President-Elect term
Vice Presidents (6) – 2 year terms
Secretary/Treasurer – 1 year term

Immediate Past Presidents Directors (2): Effectively, this is the 3rd or 4th year of a President- Elect
Duties are as specified in the Bylaws

So, of the 29, only 10 are elected by members and this election is, generally, uncontested. Typically, the 10 serve staggered 3 year terms. Each year either 3 or 4 (every third year) are elected at the AAA Annual Meeting. This year that Annual meeting is on October 26 in Boston in conjunction with the SoA Annual meeting - see: http://www.actuary.org/annualmtg.asp.

An Academy board Nominating Committee selects candidates for a slate presented at the Annual meeting. There is usually a call for nominations from the floor (one of the rights members have per the Bylaws is the right to "nominate"). However, usually there are no nominations from the floor and the slate is voted in more or less by a hand vote of those present at the Annual meeting.

This is not the contested election that we in the SoA, at least, are used to. We sometimes get very talented and dedicated Academy board members out of this process but that is no thanks to the process.

A Very Interesting Sidebar
My understanding is that the Academy board believes that in its May 21, 2009 meeting it voted to split the Secretary/Treasurer officer/director position into two separate officer/director positions - Secretary and Treasurer. It is very hard to be sure about this because almost nothing has been announced. In order to do this the Academy board would have had to amend the Bylaws. However, there is no indication that they actually did this. For example the Academy Bylaws posted on the Academy website (as of today, 8/30/09) reflects no such change.

Even more interesting is the fact that if one reads the Bylaws Amendment Section XV, this amendment is outside the category of "Administrative, editorial, and technical amendments" and is one which should be voted on by the members. In addition, my understanding is that this addition of one more officer/director was to be accomplished without increasing the size of the board. In order to accomplish this, the total number of directors elected by the members would need to be reduced from 10 to 9. This, in any rational world, would require a vote of the members.

This is another good reason to question your Academy board.

You can find the board decision to split the Secretary/Treasurer position buried on the members log-in pages under Academy Committee Documents, Board of Directors Agendas and Minutes, May 21, 2009. What you'll find is a summary stating this: "2. The Board approved the separation of the Secretary/Treasurer position into two positions, Secretary and Treasurer." That's it! No mention of a Bylaws change which is clearly necessary to accomplish the split.

Let me ask you this: If you were that incompetent in your work product, how long would you have a job?

[Wag, the Dog]

Per Article III (1) of the Academy Bylaws:

This is not the contested election that we in the SoA, at least, are used to. We sometimes get very talented and dedicated Academy board members out of this process but that is no thanks to the process.

A Very Interesting Sidebar
My understanding is that the Academy board believes that in its May 21, 2009 meeting it voted to split the Secretary/Treasurer officer/director position into two separate officer/director positions - Secretary and Treasurer. It is very hard to be sure about this because almost nothing has been announced. In order to do this the Academy board would have had to amend the Bylaws. However, there is no indication that they actually did this. For example the Academy Bylaws posted on the Academy website (as of today, 8/30/09) reflects no such change.

Even more interesting is the fact that if one reads the Bylaws Amendment Section XV, this amendment is outside the category of "Administrative, editorial, and technical amendments" and is one which should be voted on by the members. In addition, my understanding is that this addition of one more officer/director was to be accomplished without increasing the size of the board. In order to accomplish this, the total number of directors elected by the members would need to be reduced from 10 to 9. This, in any rational world, would require a vote of the members.

This is another good reason to question your Academy board.

You can find the board decision to split the Secretary/Treasurer position buried on the members log-in pages under Academy Committee Documents, Board of Directors Agendas and Minutes, May 21, 2009. What you'll find is a summary stating this: "2. The Board approved the separation of the Secretary/Treasurer position into two positions, Secretary and Treasurer." That's it! No mention of a Bylaws change which is clearly necessary to accomplish the split.

Let me ask you this: If you were that incompetent in your work product, how long would you have a job?:iatp:

[Salzmann]

I've been a member of the AAA for 20+ years and have never seen a ballot that I can remember. Is voting on-line and did I miss it?

[cubs1908]

Riddle me this batman!?!

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/academy/bylaws_july08.pdf

Based upon the above, the AAA Board asked members to approve Bylaw changes, but they never asked members to approve the 01/01/2008 Qualification Standards?

Did the Board have the authority to adopt the revised Qualification Standards without member vote?

Also, don't the AAA Qualification Standards have different legal implications depending on what Society you belong to? Why should "Non-CAS" AAA members have a vote on specific legal matters pertinent to the CAS only? It doesn't seem right...

[Brad Gile]

I've been a member of the AAA for 20+ years and have never seen a ballot that I can remember. Is voting on-line and did I miss it?

I've been in the Academy for 30 years and have neither seen nor heard of a ballot.

[Brad Gile]

Per Article III (1) of the Academy Bylaws:

The Board shall consist of 29 Directors, comprising the nine Officers, the two immediate Past Presidents, and 18 elected Directors.

These 29 are broken into categories with election, duties, and terms as defined below:
Special Directors (8 ): Election by majority vote of Board
Represent other U.S. actuarial organizations
2 year termRegular Directors (10 ): Election by members (except majority vote of Board fills vacancy)
No special duties
3 year termOfficer Directors (9): Election by majority vote of Board
Duties as specified in Bylaws or by tradition assigned by Board
Consists of:
President-Elect – with, effectively, 2 year term
President – effectively, 2nd year of President-Elect term
Vice Presidents (6) – 2 year terms
Secretary/Treasurer – 1 year term

Immediate Past Presidents Directors (2): Effectively, this is the 3rd or 4th year of a President- Elect
Duties are as specified in the BylawsSo, of the 29, only 10 are elected by members and this election is, generally, uncontested. Typically, the 10 serve staggered 3 year terms. Each year either 3 or 4 (every third year) are elected at the AAA Annual Meeting. This year that Annual meeting is on October 26 in Boston in conjunction with the SoA Annual meeting - see: http://www.actuary.org/annualmtg.asp.

An Academy board Nominating Committee selects candidates for a slate presented at the Annual meeting. There is usually a call for nominations from the floor (one of the rights members have per the Bylaws is the right to "nominate"). However, usually there are no nominations from the floor and the slate is voted in more or less by a hand vote of those present at the Annual meeting.

This is not the contested election that we in the SoA, at least, are used to. We sometimes get very talented and dedicated Academy board members out of this process but that is no thanks to the process.

A Very Interesting Sidebar
My understanding is that the Academy board believes that in its May 21, 2009 meeting it voted to split the Secretary/Treasurer officer/director position into two separate officer/director positions - Secretary and Treasurer. It is very hard to be sure about this because almost nothing has been announced. In order to do this the Academy board would have had to amend the Bylaws. However, there is no indication that they actually did this. For example the Academy Bylaws posted on the Academy website (as of today, 8/30/09) reflects no such change.

Even more interesting is the fact that if one reads the Bylaws Amendment Section XV, this amendment is outside the category of "Administrative, editorial, and technical amendments" and is one which should be voted on by the members. In addition, my understanding is that this addition of one more officer/director was to be accomplished without increasing the size of the board. In order to accomplish this, the total number of directors elected by the members would need to be reduced from 10 to 9. This, in any rational world, would require a vote of the members.

This is another good reason to question your Academy board.

You can find the board decision to split the Secretary/Treasurer position buried on the members log-in pages under Academy Committee Documents, Board of Directors Agendas and Minutes, May 21, 2009. What you'll find is a summary stating this: "2. The Board approved the separation of the Secretary/Treasurer position into two positions, Secretary and Treasurer." That's it! No mention of a Bylaws change which is clearly necessary to accomplish the split.

Let me ask you this: If you were that incompetent in your work product, how long would you have a job?

Tom, it looks to me like we have, over many years, allowed the AAA go haywire and drunk with power. They have gotten so used to this, they have gotten careless. Everything with AAA lately seems to have gone crazy, and it is AAA that has the practical power of granting practice rights in the US, yet is immune from its membership?

This has to be stopped. We have let the monkeys take over the monkey house.

[Angstrom]

Thank god(s) there is no pending legislation in the United States congress of vital importance to our profession that need to be addressed by the AAA, so we are allowed these ridiculous distractions.

...How do you use the red font again?

[tbakos]

I've been in the Academy for 30 years and have neither seen nor heard of a ballot.

During my 37 years in the Academy the only way members are allowed to vote is in person at the Annual meeting. That is why you have never seen a ballot or even a contested election.

I, admittedly, was never very concerned about that before and I do believe that overall the Academy does very good work (mostly done by dedicated staff and volunteers). However, the members never really ever had control. Now, perhaps, is the time to demand it.

[tbakos]

Tom, it looks to me like we have, over many years, allowed the AAA go haywire and drunk with power. They have gotten so used to this, they have gotten careless. Everything with AAA lately seems to have gone crazy, and it is AAA that has the practical power of granting practice rights in the US, yet is immune from its membership?

This has to be stopped. We have let the monkeys take over the monkey house.

Yes we have - it's part our fault too for not demanding (members that is) an ability to be more involved in the process of selecting our leaders. But, if there ever was a time to do something, now is it.

[exactuary]

Yes we have - it's part our fault too for not demanding (members that is) an ability to be more involved in the process of selecting our leaders. But, if there ever was a time to do something, now is it.:iatp:

[campbell]

:iatp:

Thirded.

[MNSmith]

I know Bruce hasn't lost his MAAA. James Stanard and Ronald Ferguson committed securities fraud. They're still AAA members. I was pointing out (should have been in red) that Bruce must have done something really bad because the AAA doesn't view securities fraud as a bad thing.

I'd check your records on Stanard - I don't believe he was convicted.

The AAA is not the only culprit of acquiescence - the first person to ever be thrown out of the CIA is still an FCAS and MAAA.

Funny thing about Stanard -when the judgement came out on his case, it contained such strong language about the actions of his subordinate (who had already settled and not gone to trial), that said subordinate was immediately fired from his then current job.

Hmmm. Now let's reflect for a minute....

[cubs1969]

Records checked. Were you quibbling with the use of "convicted" instead of "held liable?"

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20875.htm

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on January 27, 2009, after a six-day bench trial, the Hon. Gerard E. Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion and order that, among other things, held defendant James N. Stanard liable for securities fraud in the Commission's civil enforcement action against him. Stanard is the former chief executive officer of reinsurer RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. ("RenRe"). The court also held Stanard liable for making false or misleading statements to auditors, providing false officer certifications, and violating and aiding and abetting violations of reporting, books-and-records, and internal controls provisions of the securities laws.

The court further found that "Stanard damaged his credibility by claiming repeatedly at trial that this was intended as a reinsurance transaction, when in fact it was intended only to have an accounting effect, and not to constitute true insurance against risk."

[Salzmann]

During my 37 years in the Academy the only way members are allowed to vote is in person at the Annual meeting. That is why you have never seen a ballot or even a contested election.

Thanks- I do remember seeing that someplace. This is crazy for an organization the size of the Academy.

[JMO]

Thanks- I do remember seeing that someplace. This is crazy for an organization the size of the Academy.
Seconded.

They should at least let us submit proxies.

[Jack]

Thank god(s) there is no pending legislation in the United States congress of vital importance to our profession that need to be addressed by the AAA, so we are allowed these ridiculous distractions.

...How do you use the red font again?

The AAA has been very active on that issue

http://actuary.org/pdf/health/transition_aug09.pdf

http://actuary.org/issues/health_reform.asp


Cori Uccello who is the health guru for the Academy has been in the news preety frequently.

[Gandalf]

Seconded.

They should at least let us submit proxies.
What's the procedure for members nominating someone for President elect?

[Arden Bensenhaver]

This whole thing smells

[exactuary]

This reminds me of a cartoon circa 1972 where these stoners are saying "We're gonna change the government!" and an unseen voice says "how?" "Well, we're gonna get a petition, you know, like, petition the government, yeah, get a law, uh..."

The only action step I've seen here, and it only attempts to address the disclosure issue, is Wag's posted e-mail to Mary Downs. Not sure which thread.

If you really want to change the AAA bylaws, follow tbakos' lead and read the bylaws, figure out how the membership can restore its rights and act thereon.

As fo me, like those cartooners, I'm gonna hit the bong.

[Wag, the Dog]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3869091&postcount=16

[MNSmith]

Records checked. Were you quibbling with the use of "convicted" instead of "held liable?"

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20875.htm

A little more than a "quibble". A conviction would have prevented him from ever being an officer or director. In this case, the judge did not render such a ban. But if there's a belief that a case could be made for "conduct unbecoming", then the ABCD should be notified.

[cubs1969]

Are you suggesting that Stanard shouldn't be disciplined?

[tbakos]

What's the procedure for members nominating someone for President elect?

Well, the nominating process is only vaguely described in the Academy Bylaws.

In Article I - Membership can be found: Members shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Academy, vote, hold office, serve as elected Directors, make nominations, serve on committees, and generally exercise the rights of full membership.

The only entity in the Bylaws granted the right to "nominate" are the members. The President does have the authority to "appoint committees authorized by the Board" and, apparently a Nominating Committee has been appointed and filled by the President with members who also happen to be currently sitting Academy board members. By way of contrast, the SoA Nominating Committee per SoA Bylaws may not be currently sitting board members or candidates.

One can certainly reasonably question this Academy approach to nominations.

As noted in an earlier post, members of the Academy are only entitled to elect some of what are called regular directors. See Article III - Board of Directors (B) wherein it states:

Each year the members shall elect a number of regular Directors to bring the total number of elected Directors to 18. Candidates receiving the greatest number of votes shall be elected.

There is no specific indication of exactly how the election is to be carried out in the Bylaws. As noted, traditionaly, the election of regular board members has been done at the Annual meeting of the Academy among members there present - usually a very small percentage of Academy membership. However, this is not necessarily the only way elections may be carried out - just the way the Academy has always done it. For example, operating under the same Illinois General Not For Profit Corporation Act the SoA conducts elections electronically which allows all members a reasonable opportunity to vote in an election.

Another point, of course, is that the Academy Bylaws seem to anticipate a contested election by indicating the "Candidates receiving the greatest number of votes shall be elected." Academy elections in the past, of course, have not been contested - meaning all candidates on the slate presented by the Nominating Committee are elected.

So, the original question is what to do about this?

Well, first, if you are attending the SoA Annual meeting in Boston be sure to attend the Academy Annual meeting held in conjucntion with that meeting on October 26.

Next, I suggest writing to or petitioning the Academy President - just like has been done on FEM. Remind him that the members pay the dues. I believe that if enough members express their reasonable concerns about this that the Academy will have to address this issue and will, in fact, when Bruce Schobel is President.

[Wag, the Dog]

Next, I suggest writing to or petitioning the Academy President - just like has been done on FEM. Remind him that the members pay the dues. I believe that if enough members express their reasonable concerns about this that the Academy will have to address this issue and will, in fact, when Bruce Schobel is President.http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3865540&postcount=1131

[cubs1969]

Seconded.

They should at least let us submit proxies.

The state of Illinois lets you submit proxies.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=080501050HArt%2E+7&ActID=2280&ChapAct=805%A0ILCS%A0105%2F&ChapterID=65&ChapterName=BUSINESS+ORGANIZATIONS&SectionID=64807&SeqStart=5100000&SeqEnd=6700000&ActName=General+Not+For+Profit+Corporation+Act+of+ 1986%2E

(805 ILCS 105/107.50) (from Ch. 32, par. 107.50)
Sec. 107.50. Proxies. A member entitled to vote may vote in person or, unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws otherwise provide, by proxy executed in writing by the member or by that member's duly authorized attorney‑in‑fact. No proxy shall be valid after 11 months from the date of its execution, unless otherwise provided in the proxy. Where directors or officers are to be elected by members, the bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1423.)

[tbakos]

The state of Illinois lets you submit proxies.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=080501050HArt%2E+7&ActID=2280&ChapAct=805%A0ILCS%A0105%2F&ChapterID=65&ChapterName=BUSINESS+ORGANIZATIONS&SectionID=64807&SeqStart=5100000&SeqEnd=6700000&ActName=General+Not+For+Profit+Corporation+Act+of+ 1986%2E

Cubs1969 - Good point but isn't the issue bigger than just the actual act of voting?

It appears from this Act provision [107.50] that members may vote by proxy since the Academy Bylaws do not "otherwise provide". That is, if you come to an Annual meeting with properly executed proxies, you can vote them. Perhaps, however, this ought to be examined a little more closely before it is attempted.

However, we should be electing 4 regular directors at the Annual meeting in Boston. I would expect, based on prior tradition, to see only 4 names on the ballot. There are 29 directors. Voting for only 4 cannot have much of an impact. And, the four offered may actually be very good candidates and each may be very much interested in representing member interests.

So, the use of proxies are a way to achieve change but that power needs to be directed at more than just voting for a slate of offered candidates.

Perhaps you had more in mind than just that?

[exactuary]

Tom, since those four names already know who they are, maybe they should come here, or otherwise communicate with the electorate, before someone else gets more proxies together than there will be AAA members in attendance. A few hundred proxies might do it, so the four "official" candidates might want to pitch their candidacies. They might even persuade themselves that they were in a real election, like at the SOA.

[tbakos]

Tom, since those four names already know who they are, maybe they should come here, or otherwise communicate with the electorate, before someone else gets more proxies together than there will be AAA members in attendance. A few hundred proxies might do it, so the four "official" candidates might want to pitch their candidacies. They might even persuade themselves that they were in a real election, like at the SOA.

There could be close to 1,000 Academy members at the Academy Annual meeting this year. Having it in conjuction with the SoA Annual meeting (usually well attended) almost assures that.

And, typically, the names of the candidates are not known to the voting members before the Academy Annual meeting. (I know, this gets to sound more bizarre as we get deeper into it.)

Then there is this: The Academy Board, apparently, believes that they have amended the Academy Bylaws in order to split the Secretary/Treasurer position in two reducing by one the number of regular directors the members "elect" in order to keep the total number of directors at 29. So, it is very likely that the members will only be offered 3 candidates to elect at the Annual meeting.

If that is what is presented to us on October 26 I would hope the members present would howl. :furious:

I will, however, explore further the proxy route. Must be prepared!

[JMO]

There could be close to 1,000 Academy members at the Academy Annual meeting this year. Having it in conjuction with the SoA Annual meeting (usually well attended) almost assures that.

And, typically, the names of the candidates are not known to the voting members before the Academy Annual meeting. (I know, this gets to sound more bizarre as we get deeper into it.)

Then there is this: The Academy Board, apparently, believes that they have amended the Academy Bylaws in order to split the Secretary/Treasurer position in two reducing by one the number of regular directors the members "elect" in order to keep the total number of directors at 29. So, it is very likely that the members will only be offered 3 candidates to elect at the Annual meeting.

If that is what is presented to us on October 26 I would hope the members present would howl. :furious:

I will, however, explore further the proxy route. Must be prepared!
Would you be willing to serve as one of the "opposition" candidates? It seems that you could offer a lot. . .

[Brad Gile]

There could be close to 1,000 Academy members at the Academy Annual meeting this year. Having it in conjuction with the SoA Annual meeting (usually well attended) almost assures that.

And, typically, the names of the candidates are not known to the voting members before the Academy Annual meeting. (I know, this gets to sound more bizarre as we get deeper into it.)

Then there is this: The Academy Board, apparently, believes that they have amended the Academy Bylaws in order to split the Secretary/Treasurer position in two reducing by one the number of regular directors the members "elect" in order to keep the total number of directors at 29. So, it is very likely that the members will only be offered 3 candidates to elect at the Annual meeting.

If that is what is presented to us on October 26 I would hope the members present would howl. :furious:

I will, however, explore further the proxy route. Must be prepared!

This whole affair is proof that truth can, indeed, be stranger than fiction.

[JMO]

This whole affair is proof that truth can, indeed, be stranger than fiction.
How about you, Brad? Would you run for AAA board?

[tbakos]

Would you be willing to serve as one of the "opposition" candidates? It seems that you could offer a lot. . .

I will further investigate who the candidates to be offered are first. As I said, they may be very good and support member involvement. The fact that they are nominated by an imperfect process should not, in and of itself, mean they need opposition.

In addition, I plan to run for SoA President-Elect in 2010. If elected (I hope you and many others will vote for me), I would be (if current traditions are maintained) a member of the Academy Board as a special director via that route.

[Will Durant]

I will be at the lunch but I am not MAAA.

:popcorn:

[bdschobel]

You can join!

Bruce

[cubs1969]

Cubs1969 - Good point but isn't the issue bigger than just the actual act of voting?

It appears from this Act provision [107.50] that members may vote by proxy since the Academy Bylaws do not "otherwise provide". That is, if you come to an Annual meeting with properly executed proxies, you can vote them. Perhaps, however, this ought to be examined a little more closely before it is attempted.

However, we should be electing 4 regular directors at the Annual meeting in Boston. I would expect, based on prior tradition, to see only 4 names on the ballot. There are 29 directors. Voting for only 4 cannot have much of an impact. And, the four offered may actually be very good candidates and each may be very much interested in representing member interests.

So, the use of proxies are a way to achieve change but that power needs to be directed at more than just voting for a slate of offered candidates.

Perhaps you had more in mind than just that?

Here's what I was thinking.

1. Collect a bunch of proxies. (I'm a CAS/AAA member and can't attend the meeting.)
2. Using what follows, request an inspector. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=080501050HArt%2E+7&ActID=2280&ChapAct=805%A0ILCS%A0105%2F&ChapterID=65&ChapterName=BUSINESS+ORGANIZATIONS&SectionID=64807&SeqStart=5100000&SeqEnd=6700000&ActName=General+Not+For+Profit+Corporation+Act+of+ 1986%2E

(805 ILCS 105/107.35) (from Ch. 32, par. 107.35)
Sec. 107.35. Inspectors. At any meeting of members, the chairman of the meeting may, or upon the request of any members shall, appoint one or more persons as inspectors for such meeting, unless an inspector or inspectors shall have been previously appointed for such meeting in the manner provided by the bylaws of the corporation.
Such inspectors shall ascertain and report the number of votes represented at the meeting, based upon their determination of the validity and effect of proxies; count all votes and report the results; and do such other acts as are proper to conduct the election and voting with impartiality and fairness to all the members.
Each report of an inspector shall be in writing and signed by him or her or by a majority of them if there be more than one inspector acting at such meeting. If there is more than one inspector, the report of a majority shall be the report of the inspectors. The report of the inspector or inspectors on the number of votes represented at the meeting and the results of the voting shall be prima facie evidence thereof.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1423.)

3. Nominate,in accordance with the bylaws (Article I, Section 1), http://www.actuary.org/yearbook/2009/bylaws.pdf, Bruce Schobel as a Regular Director.

Bruce is the ideal person to nominate as he has name recognition with the SOA members who will constitute the bulk of the members present and he's the last person people the current AAA leadership wants as a director. I doubt that they can even administer the election as, once it's contested, the inspectors have to count the votes. IIRC, at the one AAA meeting that I attended, prior to my getting credentialed, people voted voted over dessert. I remember thinking to myself that I could have voted and no one would have known (or cared.)

[campbell]

I will be at the lunch but I am not MAAA.

:popcorn:

I had been considering skipping the lunch, but I think my plans are changed now.

[JMO]

I had been considering skipping the lunch, but I think my plans are changed now.
As I recall, the sequence of events is lunch, meeting, speaker. You could walk out after the meeting.

[The Head Detective]

when Bruce Schobel is President.

Forgive me for being dense, but are you suggesting that the PE vacancy that was "announced" last week is being contested?

This whole affair is fascinating and eye opening (and a little disheartening). The only Board experience I have is some limited involvement with my condo, but I find it hard to believe that a decision like this can be made without at least an explanation. The Board may have the autority to remove someone from office, but there needs to be a very good reason and I can't imagine there are many valid reasons that also need to be kept secret.

[tbakos]

Here's what I was thinking.

3. Nominate,in accordance with the bylaws (Article I, Section 1), http://www.actuary.org/yearbook/2009/bylaws.pdf, Bruce Schobel as a Regular Director.

Bruce is the ideal person to nominate as he has name recognition with the SOA members who will constitute the bulk of the members present and he's the last person people the current AAA leadership wants as a director.

Good plan. I, maybe, have a better one. If the President-Elect position is indeed vacant (and, I do not believe that it is), we Academy members prior to the meeting should use our Bylaws right to nominate and usurp the Nominating Committee's exercise of this member right. We should nominate Bruce Schobel as President-Elect and should close nominations at one candidate. Therefore, the Board, which elects this position would have only one choice.

Let's be bold!
__________________________________________________ _____________

By the way - the individuals to be nominated at October 26 Annual meeting will be (to the best of my knowledge):

Dave Neve (Life actuary)
Tom Wildsmith (Health actuary)
unknown candidate representing casualty practice area - maybe Mary D. Miller

Of course, this is only three, and there should be four. As noted the Academy board thinks it has the authority to elect a Secretary and a Treasurer making a total of 12 officer/directors. They don't - check the posted Bylaws. Clearly, to change the Bylaws on this requires a member vote to amend.

In addition, Art Panighetti (currently a board member) should be elected a VP and Ron Gebhartsbauer would be appointed or elected by the Board to fill out Art's unexpired term.

With respect to those I kknow, they all appear to be very good people.

[campbell]

As I recall, the sequence of events is lunch, meeting, speaker. You could walk out after the meeting.

Oh, that makes my decision so much easier. I hope this is the case.

[JMO]

You people with the plans have been watching too many movies, and not enough c-span. (Or maybe I have been reading too many books and not watching enough movies. ;))

[Will Durant]

As I recall, the sequence of events is lunch, meeting, speaker. You could walk out after the meeting.
Sounds like a plan. Not really interested in listening to Doris Kearns Goodwin flapping her gums.

[campbell]

Going back to the splitting of treasurer/secretary role [and ignoring the bylaws issue, which I agree is important].... was any reason given as to why?

[inexactuary]

Suppose you managed to nominate an opposition candidate and get enough votes to get him/her elected. Is there anything preventing the remainder of the board from simply removing this person and replacing with their own selection?

[bdschobel]

Illinois law.

Bruce

[tbakos]

Forgive me for being dense, but are you suggesting that the PE vacancy that was "announced" last week is being contested?

This whole affair is fascinating and eye opening (and a little disheartening). The only Board experience I have is some limited involvement with my condo, but I find it hard to believe that a decision like this can be made without at least an explanation. The Board may have the autority to remove someone from office, but there needs to be a very good reason and I can't imagine there are many valid reasons that also need to be kept secret.


It certainly seems magical for the President-Elect position to suddenly become vacant. Since the Academy leadership has provided no explanation of this magical event then we as members should simply not accept it. I don't believe in magic - it is usually just smoke and mirrors.

We will, I believe, if we press our case and ask good questions, force saner minds to put things back in order. That is what I am working towards. We must have confidence that right will prevail.

[tbakos]

Going back to the splitting of treasurer/secretary role [and ignoring the bylaws issue, which I agree is important].... was any reason given as to why?

Nope. I have pointed this out to a number of Academy Board members and Mary Downs and all but one seem to argue that:

First, they did something (i.e. amend the Bylaws - althought there is absolutely no evidence of that), and
Second, it was right.

The only current Academy Board member to whom I talked who agreed the Academy board did, apparently, screw up was Bruce Schobel.

So, the answer to your question is that what seems to be going around is a whole lot of incompetence (with the notable exclusion of Bruce Schobel).

[cubs1969]

Good plan. I, maybe, have a better one. If the President-Elect position is indeed vacant (and, I do not believe that it is), we Academy members prior to the meeting should use our Bylaws right to nominate and usurp the Nominating Committee's exercise of this member right. We should nominate Bruce Schobel as President-Elect and should close nominations at one candidate. Therefore, the Board, which elects this position would have only one choice.


That's not going to work. President-Elect is determined by the board. There's no way for the membership to determine who the president-elect is. There's no way to close nominations for president-elect and, even if you managed to do it, you'd be guilty of squelching the rights of other members - the very thing the board is doing now.

[Jeremy Gold]

Good plan. I, maybe, have a better one. If the President-Elect position is indeed vacant (and, I do not believe that it is), we Academy members prior to the meeting should use our Bylaws right to nominate and usurp the Nominating Committee's exercise of this member right. We should nominate Bruce Schobel as President-Elect and should close nominations at one candidate. Therefore, the Board, which elects this position would have only one choice.

Let's be bold!
__________________________________________________ _____________

By the way - the individuals to be nominated at October 26 Annual meeting will be (to the best of my knowledge):

Dave Neve (Life actuary)
Tom Wildsmith (Health actuary)
unknown candidate representing casualty practice area - maybe Mary D. Miller

Of course, this is only three, and there should be four. As noted the Academy board thinks it has the authority to elect a Secretary and a Treasurer making a total of 12 officer/directors. They don't - check the posted Bylaws. Clearly, to change the Bylaws on this requires a member vote to amend.

In addition, Art Panighetti (currently a board member) should be elected a VP and Ron Gebhartsbauer would be appointed or elected by the Board to fill out Art's unexpired term.

With respect to those I kknow, they all appear to be very good people.Tom, so far your legal and civic scholarship has been A+ (hmmm, we might make you a lawyer by FEM ...) but I think the current bylaws, which cannot be amended prior to the meeting, specify that the Board "elects" the PE. Can you show me how the membership can "use our Bylaws right to nominate and usurp the Nominating Committee's exercise of this member right." unless the Board acquiesces or, a much longer process, the bylaws are amended by the membership?

And just to keep the speculation going, I understood that Mary Frances Miller, also CAS, is to be the PE. Is it possible that there is some confusion between the Mary Millers?

[Wag, the Dog]

Ladies and Gentlemen: Your American Academy of Actuaries, leaders in risk management and risk management communications! Let's hear it for them! Rah!

(see Eddie Murphy in the Distinguished Gentleman)

[Maphisto's Sidekick]

Illinois law.

Wasn't it Blagojevich who argued that in Illinois, the law is irrelevant?

[Angstrom]

Smokey, this isn't 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

[Maine-iac]

I really don't want to leave the Academy. I think the work done in the public policy arena regarding pension policy, the health insurance debate, etc. is very valuable.

But this kind of bizarre governance really makes me question whether or not I can justify asking my employer to pay my AAA dues. Let us hope for some transparency before they come due again.

[Will Durant]

You can join!
I should, but I have concerns ... grave concerns [is there another kind?] ... about joining an organization with leadership that
a) Does not understand their own bylaws
b) Does not understand laws of their state of incorporation
c) Apparently allows personality issues to intrude on board decisions
d) Refuses to communicate decisions properly

[tbakos]

Tom, so far your legal and civic scholarship has been A+ (hmmm, we might make you a lawyer by FEM ...) but I think the current bylaws, which cannot be amended prior to the meeting, specify that the Board "elects" the PE. Can you show me how the membership can "use our Bylaws right to nominate and usurp the Nominating Committee's exercise of this member right." unless the Board acquiesces or, a much longer process, the bylaws are amended by the membership?

And just to keep the speculation going, I understood that Mary Frances Miller, also CAS, is to be the PE. Is it possible that there is some confusion between the Mary Millers?

First, yes you are correct, I believe, Mary Frances Miller is the President-Elect candidate the Academy Board will elect. However, there is also a Mary D. Miller, FCAS who works for the Ohio Ins. Dept.

As to your first question, I was being a bit avant garde and certainly the process I suggested wouldn't be easy. But, it starts with the premise that the members have the only Bylaws given right to "nominate". We have allowed the Academy board to dictate how that right is to exercised - that is, through a Board appointed Nominating Committee.

I do not think that if the members took back this right and exercised it responsibly that it could be argued that a certain subset of members had violated other member's rights in this area.

I do not see anywhere in the Bylaws any hint even that the members cannot nominate the directors or officer/directors the Academy board votes on.

Clearly, there would be a lot of practical hurdles and there may not be enough time before the October 20 Academy Board meeting at which their election takes place - in Denver, by the way - to overcome them. Definitely, the initial plan should be to bring light to the hazy recesses of our Academy board's collective mind.

[tbakos]

I really don't want to leave the Academy.

Don't! Work to make it better.

[campbell]

Smokey, this isn't 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

RN

But back to the sec/treasurer thing. I can see one main effect, and that's the loss of one directly elected Board member. I do not see anything else that would mean it is "right".

Those roles are often combined [and I've held such roles in a variety of organizations, though none a big as the Academy]. Most groups have no trouble with these being combined. From a practical point of view, I do not see the necessity. It requires something more of a statement of fait accompli.

And, of course, there's the whole "Can they do that legitimately?" question.

[llcooljabe]

Dumb question by a uncredentialed (noncredentialed?) actuarialerist (:tup:): I am fascinated by the goings on described here. Are the flames of outrage being fanned other than on the AO? It doesn't seem to be safe to assume that the percentage of academy members who come to the AO (and read these threads in particular) is high.

[no driver]

I'd just like to know what the heck happened so that we can make up our minds whether or not the board's decision was justified in any way. Those in the know, will that happen?

I never thought I'd be getting involved with such bizarre organizational antics when I decided to switch careers.

[tbakos]

I should, but I have concerns ... grave concerns [is there another kind?] ... about joining an organization with leadership that
a) Does not understand their own bylaws
b) Does not understand laws of their state of incorporation
c) Apparently allows personality issues to intrude on board decisions
d) Refuses to communicate decisions properly

A problem only in the leadership can be fixed. And, I think, easily.

I want to reiterate that I believe the Academy has made, is making, and will make an important and valuable contribution to the Actuarial profession in the U.S. It can only continue to do that with continued member support.

You can adjust leadership thinking only as a member - probably.


If all you want or can do is send an email in protest to the Academy board - Do It Now! Please make it intellegent and well reasoned. Do not stoop to their level. :dsmile:

See Cubs 1969 posting: http://actuary.ca/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3868992&postcount=13 for email addresses.

Hey! Just for the fun of it, send one to "vacant" too. And, if you don't mind, copy me at: reply@BakosEnterprises.com.

[Jeremy Gold]

Definitely, the initial plan should be to bring light to the hazy recesses of our Academy board's collective mind.

Bravo. Let there be light. And transparency.

But frankly Tom, I have called Bruce disingenuous somewhere on the AO and your pretense that you don't know what happened at the 8/5 AAA board meeting is belied by your private e-mails to the SOA Board. You know more, and more directly, than any of us non-AAA-board members what happened on 8/5 and since. You have it straight from the deposees mouth.

I think John Parks and Mary Downs should be more forthcoming on behalf of the AAA but, if Bruce can tell you and if Bruce can post all over the AO, why can't Bruce tell us what happened instead of going to moderators to get AP's posts erased? I reported on my conversations with Mod1 and Tom (Troceen, not Bakos) in another thread.

Even with lawyers and maybe the ABCD involved, there should be something Bruce can say. For example, he could tell us whether the AAA board voted to remove him on 8/5. Then, if he wishes he can tell us why that vote was unlawful, unjust, illegal, whatever. No pending actions would be prejudiced by a statement by Bruce or the remaining leadership as to a factual matter about a vote on 8/5.

[California]

I guess I will attend the Academy lunch.

[tbakos]

I'd just like to know what the heck happened so that we can make up our minds whether or not the board's decision was justified in any way. Those in the know, will that happen?

I never thought I'd be getting involved with such bizarre organizational antics when I decided to switch careers.

The people who should tell you that are on the Academy board. Cubs1969 made it very easy to contact them: See http://actuary.ca/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3868992&postcount=13

Send them an email and ask.

[bdschobel]

I promised in another thread that I would comment "soon," and I will. It won't be today, but it will be this week for sure. I don't enjoy being silent any more than you do!

Bruce

[tbakos]

Bravo. Let there be light. And transparency.

... your pretense that you don't know what happened at the 8/5 AAA board meeting is belied by your private e-mails to the SOA Board. You know more, and more directly, than any of us non-AAA-board members what happened on 8/5 and since.

I think John Parks and Mary Downs should be more forthcoming on behalf of the AAA ...

Even with lawyers and maybe the ABCD involved, there should be something Bruce can say...

We should first expect the Academy leadership, or, at least, give them an opportunity, to shed light on all of this.

I have exhibited no pretense. Certainly, I have my own beliefs about what happened at the 8/5 Academy board meeting. In part those beliefs include a belief that the Academy, itself, has no idea what happened. Clearly, if anything important happened it would have been announced - one would reasonably think. I do know the meeting was in executive session. This is the convenient excuse all of those I have communicated with on the board or staff have used to defer inquiries.

I think we should let this play out a bit more. Let's first give the Academy leadership to an opportunity to correct, if they can, the grievious harm they are doing to the profession without doing it more harm ourselves.

[Maine-iac]

Don't! Work to make it better.

Well, I'll do my best, but not being able to get to the AAA meeting and vote, participation seems to be a tough nut to crack. If I can figure out a way to give a proxy, I'd certainly do it.

[Maphisto's Sidekick]

Dumb question by a uncredentialed (noncredentialed?) actuarialerist (:tup:): I am fascinated by the goings on described here. Are the flames of outrage being fanned other than on the AO? It doesn't seem to be safe to assume that the percentage of academy members who come to the AO (and read these threads in particular) is high.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a supermajority of Academy membership was aware that anything happened, at least until the passing mention in NU.

A supermajority probably still trusts that the AAA Board has its reasons, and/or doesn't really care.

[mr coffee]

Thank god(s) there is no pending legislation in the United States congress of vital importance to our profession that need to be addressed by the AAA, so we are allowed these ridiculous distractions.

...How do you use the red font again?

I have found the AAA's recent addresses to congress and the public in general on burning public policy issues have usually been vapid and detrimental to the image of the profession. I think they've shown again and again that they have little to offer. The academy members chosen to communicate too often fail to demonstrate expertise and educate, but rather come across as the watered down journalists you typically here on network news shows.

Just my opinion.

[cubs1969]

We should first expect the Academy leadership, or, at least, give them an opportunity, to shed light on all of this.

I have exhibited no pretense. Certainly, I have my own beliefs about what happened at the 8/5 Academy board meeting. In part those beliefs include a belief that the Academy, itself, has no idea what happened. Clearly, if anything important happened it would have been announced - one would reasonably think. I do know the meeting was in executive session. This is the convenient excuse all of those I have communicated with on the board or staff have used to defer inquiries.

I think we should let this play out a bit more. Let's first give the Academy leadership to an opportunity to correct, if they can, the grievious harm they are doing to the profession without doing it more harm ourselves.

There's nothing in the bylaws that mention executive sessions and the Illinois statute that's been passed around doesn't address it. The Academy policies http://www.actuary.org/yearbook/2009/meetings.pdf do address the issue.

The Academy’s meetings (including conference calls) are open to its members, and to guests invited by the committee or task force chair, with the exceptions of the Nominating Committee, the Budget and Finance Committee, Personnel and Compensation Committee, and the Committee on Discipline, whose meetings are closed. However, portions of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors meetings may be closed for executive sessions, as well as portions of committee and task force meetings when necessary to consider confidential information where such consideration is essential to accomplish tasks assigned to the committees or task forces by the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, or the appropriate Vice President. Committee or task force meetings may be closed to members only for the purpose of considering confidential information with the prior consent of the appropriate Vice President or the President, and subject to any terms, conditions, or restrictions that the Vice President or President may impose. The decision to permit a committee or task force to close its meetings shall be reported to the Board of Directors at its next regularly scheduled meeting.


My read of this is that the Nominating Committee, Budget and Finance Committe, Personnel and Compensation Committe, and the Committe on Discipline are the only meetings that are automatically closed to members. Was prior consent to close the meeting obtained, were there restrictions, and will that be reported to the Board? Probably not. My guess is that the Board routinely ignores the prior consent and notification requirements. Note, however, that this is a "policy" and not a bylaw. The Illinois statute is quite clear on disclosure:

Sec. 107.75. Books and records.
(a) Each corporation shall keep correct and complete books and records of account and shall also keep minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors and committees having any of the authority of the board of directors; and shall keep at its registered office or principal office a record giving the names and addresses of its members entitled to vote. All books and records of a corporation may be inspected by any member entitled to vote, or that member's agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time.


Witholding meeting minutes because the Board was in "executive session" is a clear violation of the statute (note the phrase "All books and records..."). Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has a word of advice for board members that don't do the right thing. http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/charities/volunteers.html

The Illinois Attorney General has the responsibility to the public of assuring sound and legal operation of not-for-profit organizations. This includes bringing legal action against board members for failure to exercise their legal responsibilities. Board members can be held personally liable by third parties injured by actions of the organization. Liability insurance for directors and officers is often available to cover some of these situations.

People can file complaints here: http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/email_ag.jsp

[bdschobel]

I have found the AAA's recent addresses to congress and the public in general on burning public policy issues have usually been vapid and detrimental to the image of the profession. I think they've shown again and again that they have little to offer. The academy members chosen to communicate too often fail to demonstrate expertise and educate, but rather come across as the watered down journalists you typically here on network news shows. Just my opinion.Was last year's call to raise Social Security's retirement age another example of this phenomenon or an exception to the rule? I was the principal author of that statement and carried the message to Congress and the media. Just wondering where it fits in your pantheon.

Bruce

[kermit]

Lord, what a soap opera.

[cubs1969]

Was last year's call to raise Social Security's retirement age another example of this phenomenon or an exception to the rule? I was the principal author of that statement and carried the message to Congress and the media. Just wondering where it fits in your pantheon.


I'd say it's an example. Did you also suggest that along with raising the retirement age that social security disability rules be changed so that a person in the 65-70 age group has lower disability requirements. Did you also suggest that the cap on wages subject to Social Security be removed or adjusted? Once you start making policy recommendations you start down a slippery slope toward not being taken seriously as analysts.

The Academy shouldn't be involved in public policy formulation and should be seen as a source of independent analysis. There's a school of thought that says that people that can do economic analysis are also policy experts (Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw, for example.) The Academy shouldn't fall into that trap. The Contingencies issue with Obama and McCain on the cover was a mistake, especially when the media got ahold of it and used it for their own purposes. Take a look at the academy's testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee, "outlining three criteria to ensure that the current markets remain viable and offering comments on how certain provisions of the Tri-Committee bill conform with those criteria." (http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/health_systems_june09.pdf) and the Academy's paper on the public plan (http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/public_plans_june09.pdf) Those are Republican talking points dressed up in Academy clothing. Instead of broadening the dialogue, the Academy is stuck in the same rut as the Beltway media. There's no analysis, for example, of single-payer, even though it's been successfully implemented in other countries.

[EaglesFan]

Was last year's call to raise Social Security's retirement age another example of this phenomenon or an exception to the rule? I was the principal author of that statement and carried the message to Congress and the media. Just wondering where it fits in your pantheon.

Bruce

Bruce--I'd say that's awesome. But the very fact that many (most?) AO regulars didn't have that example on the front of the radar is a sign that we need to do a much better job of marketing ourselves. If we can't market ourselves internally, how are we ever going to do it externally?

[campbell]

I think it's fine for the Academy to provide policy analysis -- what are the possible trade-offs in each choice. Politicians are going to want to only play up the analysis on their side, so having both sides -- if you go this way, here are the likely benefits, here are the likely costs, et. al. and let people decide if they want to pay those costs for those benefits.

I found a previous Academy on Social Security where they looked at the impact of raising the NRA [also impact of changing age of eligibility upward from 62], which I thought was good. Here it is: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/age_oct02.pdf
I think that's the sort of educational effort that's useful in informing public policy.

[Maine-iac]

Bruce--I'd say that's awesome. But the very fact that many (most?) AO regulars didn't have that example on the front of the radar is a sign that we need to do a much better job of marketing ourselves. If we can't market ourselves internally, how are we ever going to do it externally?

I've always thought the Academy did a better job with visibility than the Societies do. Whenever I read something about actuaries, or an actuary's take on an issue in the non-trade press, it's almost always coming from the Academy somehow. Which is probably a function of their mission rather than a slur on the Societies. The things the Societies are responsible for are not relevant to the general public. But I've been in this field over 25 years, and I've noticed real improvement in the Academy's ability to formulate a position on relevant public policy debates and get it heard.

[Wigmeister General]

If I didn't need the "MAAA" for my work I'd drop it like a 400 lb anvil

[gadzookz]

You can lift a 400 lb anvil?

[FAS158]

I use the interest rate update that the Academy sends out every month extensively in my work. I wouldnt want to have to figure out the i-rates on my own.

[abwoc]

I use the interest rate update that the Academy sends out every month extensively in my work. I wouldnt want to have to figure out the i-rates on my own.

Are you trying to tell us that this is why you are a member of the AAA?

[FAS158]

Are you trying to tell us that this is why you are a member of the AAA?

Nope thats not the reason. I also benefit from other publications, alerts of the Academy. I think that that statement doesnt imply that I am for or against Bruce.

[erosewater]

Take a look at the academy's testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee, "outlining three criteria to ensure that the current markets remain viable and offering comments on how certain provisions of the Tri-Committee bill conform with those criteria." (http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/health_systems_june09.pdf) and the Academy's paper on the public plan (http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/public_plans_june09.pdf) Those are Republican talking points dressed up in Academy clothing.


That you would call those "Republican talking points" is more indicative of your own ideology than that of the Academy.


There's no analysis, for example, of single-payer, even though it's been successfully implemented in other countries.

It has?

[Wigmeister General]

You can lift a 400 lb anvil?

Is it hard to lift a 400 lb anvil?

[Brad Gile]

Well, I am retired and really have no need of an MAAA. So why do I have it? I pay a reduced dues simply to support the Academy, which I have always thought was a good public source. I think it still is, but seems to me that there is a poisonous infestation in the AAA leadership that needs to be identified and eradicated.

ETA: I have been an Academy member for thirty years. I don't want to see it self destruct.

[campbell]

And the only way to change the leadership directly involves being a member.

[Wigmeister General]

Well, I am retired and really have no need of an MAAA. So why do I have it? I pay a reduced dues simply to support the Academy, which I have always thought was a good public source. I think it still is, but seems to me that there is a poisonous infestation in the AAA leadership that needs to be identified and eradicated.

ETA: I have been an Academy member for thirty years. I don't want to see it self destruct.

Careful, Brad. You might find yourself disciplined for expressing an opinion

[Malik Shabazz]

I use the interest rate update that the Academy sends out every month extensively in my work. I wouldnt want to have to figure out the i-rates on my own.Evidently you don't use them too much, because they stopped sending them out in June.

Instead, they have a page of links (http://www.actuary.org/pension/rates.asp) to other sources.

[MAX.]

ETA: I have been an Academy member for thirty years.

Hmm... something else apparently happened 30 years ago as well... coincidence?

[Requiem]

Hmm... something else apparently happened 30 years ago as well... coincidence?

:rofl:

[Brad Gile]

Careful, Brad. You might find yourself disciplined for expressing an opinion

Oh, no! The Whip? Not the Whip! :lol:
Yeah, I'm real scared I yam, I yam! :smile:

[_BullDog_]

And the only way to change the leadership directly involves being a member.
but why continue to financial support them?

[sundwarf]

And the only way to change the leadership directly involves being a member.

Does SOA have similar mechanics from us to change the leadership? Say Impeach, non-confidence motion etc...

[FAS158]

Evidently you don't use them too much, because they stopped sending them out in June.

Instead, they have a page of links (http://www.actuary.org/pension/rates.asp) to other sources.

I use that link instead of the worksheet now. Although I preferred the worksheet. In either case I find the monthly email with the link very useful.

[bdschobel]

Does SOA have similar mechanics from us to change the leadership? Say Impeach, non-confidence motion etc...No, the SOA is very different. First of all, every Board member, including officers, is elected by the eligible voting members (Fellows and 5-year Associates). Removal requires a membersip vote, as well, with a 2/3rds majority. Totally compliant with Illinois law.

Note that I led the effort to rewrite the SOA Bylaws in 2007. Something like 93 percent of voters approved them, the highest approval percentage I've ever seen in a real democracy.

Bruce

[MountainHawk]

Were you planning on clarifying the AAA bylaws as President?

[Arden Bensenhaver]

probably still is ;)

[bdschobel]

Yup.

Bruce

[Double High C]

[totally serious]Good luck, Mr. President-Elect![/totally serious]

(Is there a "negative-red" font, to imply negative sarcasm, i.e. total seriousness?)

[Chillax]

[totally serious]Good luck, Mr. President-Elect![/totally serious]

(Is there a "negative-red" font, to imply negative sarcasm, i.e. total seriousness?)

Yes- it is black.

[Double High C]

Yes- it is black.

I'd rather be dead than red. Seriously. Almost. (Red font usually makes the use of sarcasm pointless.) Just sayin'.

[Me Too]

So theoretically and assuming things with the AAA are no different than they are now, within the bylaws and Illinois state law, what could a group of internet-organized members accomplish? Could / would proxy votes make any difference?

This is what I've been wondering about since people started showing distress over the AAA's course of action.