Click here to find out who Proposed and Seconded the Motion for Bruce's removal

[Teddy KGB]

Dear AO,

13. Thereafter, a new motion was made by Special Director Cecil Bykerk to remove me from my position as President-Elect/Director. That motion was seconded by Special Director Michael McLaughlin. In support of their motion, Bykerk and McLaughlin raised a host of new issues beyond those referenced in the letter from the 19 past presidents. Bykerk cited my opposition to a controversial proposal under consideration at the Society of Actuaries, of which he is the President, raising an apparent conflict of interest. McLaughlin raised a long list of issues, ranging from an allegedly offensive email that I sent in 2007, to a more recent issue involving McLaughlin personally, creating a clear conflict of interest with him as well.

http://www.bakosenterprises.com/Academy/De12-2%20Third%20Dec%20BS%209-10-09.pdf

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[Teddy KGB]

Dear AO,

The UK Future Education Strategy was discovered yesterday. It shows that Cecil Bykerk has been working on this FEM proposal since at least 1999.
PhildeAssociate breakdown of UK Future Education Strategy (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=175190)

UK Future Education Strategy Document written in 2001 (http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/31601/sm0101.pdf)


A steering group was formed in the middle of 1999 to lead the discussions on the development of the future education strategy. The Chairman is Jeremy Goford, ..... and Cecil Bykerk, Chairman of the IAA Education Committee.

Cecil Bykerk SOA Bio (http://www.soa.org/about/bios-and-photos/about-cecil-bykerk.aspx)

As Chair of the International Association of Actuaries (IAA) Education Committee for six years, and during his 14 years on the committee, ...... demonstrating Mr. Bykerk's ability to negotiate with and persuade individuals and organizations to come to a consensus on difficult matters.

David Hartman - 2008 IAA President

He is the one who wrote the letter and organized everyone to remove Bruce from president of the AAA. His letter can be found here: Hartman Letter (http://www.bakosenterprises.com/Academy/ABCD%20Hartman%20Disclosure.pdf)

This is what Bruce wrote 2-23-2008 on the actuarialoutpost. For those who do not know, David Hartman was the 2008 IAA president, Bruce Schobel was the 2008 SOA President. This post probably caused some controversy.
Some personal comments:
I believe that the SOA is going to demand some sort of verification that students have learned this material. The complete absence of such verification would be rejected overwhelmingly by the membership (if asked!) -- and with good reason. (Just my 2 cents, not an official position of the SOA.)
...........


Bruce made all organizations agree to an exposure draft in May 2008.

When this proposal first reappeared, early in 2007, I asked if we planned to ask our members what they think. People mumbled stuff about how that isn't necessary. At a meeting in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2008, when I was SOA president, I got the leaders of all three organizations (CAS, CIA and SOA) to agree that we would issue a joint exposure draft, seeking member (and employer) input. The goal then was to issue the exposure draft before my presidential term ended in October 2008. That didn't happen, obviously.

Please click here (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=174886) if you still want more information about the connection between the IAA and FEM. I have many posts in that thread connecting the dots for anyone interested.

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[Teddy KGB]

Dear AO,

Removing Bruce from AAA presidency on August 5th clearly wasn't enough, Cecil Bykerk on August 7th asked Bruce to step down from the SOA board for opposing FEM.

Cecil Bykerk email to Bruce Schobel on August 7th (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3822395&postcount=548)


Bruce, I’m writing to tell you that I’m very disappointed by some comments you’ve expressed in discussion threads over the last few days on the Actuarial Outpost. In your comments, you express your personal opposition to the FEM proposal, your view that it must be defeated, and your intention to organize a petition or bylaws amendment campaign against it. It seems to me that you’ve implied that some of your fellow Board members may not be willing to listen to member views on the issue and perhaps that the Board has been reluctant to seek member input. You’re encouraging and participating in a discussion thread in which our Board’s action on FEM and at least one fellow Board member’s views are being characterized, quite unfairly at times in my view. I also think you’ve questioned the intentions of the CIA and CAS, which – if seen as the views of the SOA or its leaders – can’t help our relationships with those organizations. Finally, it seems to me that you’ve begun to cast aspersions on at least one Board member’s credentials, which of course casts an aspersion on the SOA as well.

I believe some of your comments in these threads are inappropriate on several counts and that, as President, I need to tell you so. The Board has voted unanimously twice to proceed with further steps on FEM, a decision you were a part of and for which you voted. I do not think it’s appropriate for you to be leading efforts to attack it. As a Board member, you have a duty of loyalty not to undermine the decisions and actions of the Board, even if you don’t personally agree with them. I also think that, as a Past President of the SOA, you have a special responsibility to support the Board. I’m disappointed by your actions and I’m asking that you refrain from taking this approach while you’re a member of the SOA Board. Of course, if your conscience won’t permit that, you always have the option of stepping down from the Board.

For your information and that of our other Board members, the Actuarial Outpost threads where your comments can be found are:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...131439&page=31 Credit for Prelims via University Courses discussion

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...=168502&page=8 President-Elect Candidates discussion

Cecil Bykerk


Regards,

Teddy KGB

[Teddy KGB]

Dear AO,

Does anyone know what the first SOA module was? The first one ever created?

http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/Control%20Cycle%20sidebar.pdf

The Actuarial Control Cycle.

Now let's look at the new CAS education syllabus.
http://www.casact.org/cms/files/Public_Charts_July2009_1.pdf

See that neon blue highlight? It is new material! The "Actuarial Control Cycle".

Where does the Actuarial Control Cycle come from? It originated in the UK.
http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/697617

The Aussies use it as one of their main education requirements.

There are three phases of the Institutes qualification process:

* Part I - which has a technical focus, generally studied through a university or through correspondence.
* Part II - also known as the Actuarial Control Cycle (ACC) which is studied through an accredited university.
* Part III - which focuses on application of actuarial judgment to practical business situations, studied through correspondence.


Regards,

Teddy KGB

[Teddy KGB]

Dear AO,


I'm still waiting for the AAA to come out and say Canada FEM was not mentioned in the 1 hour meeting to remove Bruce.


Anyone who said that would be lying.


REWIND


I'm still waiting for the AAA to come out and say Canada FEM was not mentioned in the 1 hour meeting to remove Bruce.


Anyone who said that would be lying.


REWIND AGAIN


I'm still waiting for the AAA to come out and say Canada FEM was not mentioned in the 1 hour meeting to remove Bruce.


Anyone who said that would be lying. The person who made the motion to remove me cited FEM as his primary motivation.

Bruce

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[remilard]

Oh snap.

[Merk]

somebody posted that Bruce's removal smacks of a personality-based dispute that spilled over into professional societies. I am clearly not an expert on this issue, but it appears that Bruce's suit agrees with that assessment. My gut agrees that this dispute is more about personal conflict than actuarial concerns. Just my uneducated gut instinct.

[SharksFan08]

Dear Teddy KGB,

This thread would be a lot better if it was the meeting minutes, and not the suit Bruce filed (raising an apparent conflict of interest).

Regards,
AO

[SharksFan08]

I like you bolding "Bykerk cited my opposition to a controversial proposal under consideration at the Society of Actuaries, of which he is the President, raising an apparent conflict of interest" as if it is factual and damning, and not just an allegation from Bruce's suit.

[remilard]

Dear SharksFan08,

How do you like that Judge Sullivan called the actions of Hartman, Anker et al disgusting? You like so many other things, I thought you would like this.

Regards,

remilard

[Teddy KGB]

Dear Teddy KGB,

This thread would be a lot better if it was the meeting minutes, and not the suit Bruce filed (raising an apparent conflict of interest).

Regards,
AO

Dear SharksFan08,

There were 27 people listening to that meeting. Bruce would not lie about what was said there.

Remember, before today, no one knew that it was Cecil Bykerk that proposed the motion, and Mike McLaughlin that seconded it.

Why do you think it is such a stretch of the imagination when Cecil Bykerk two days later asked Bruce to step down from the SOA board for opposing FEM?

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[SharksFan08]

Dear SharksFan08,

How do you like that Judge Sullivan called the actions of Hartman, Anker et al disgusting? You like so many other things, I thought you would like this.

Regards,

remilard

You know me very well, I do like that! I also like the willingness to dismiss the two judges who oversaw the arbitration with Sarah Sanford, but cite the comment of this judge to bolster a point.

[remilard]

It's really unfortunate that what's put into motion the series of the sequence of events since July is the undisputed fact that the terms of a confidential arbitration agreement were revealed. That's really -- that's really unfortunate. It's unseemly. It's disgusting, but that's -- that's why you folks are all here, and I think that when the final chapter is written in this book, I think the world's going to know more about the American Academy of Actuaries than it ever wanted to learn and know about; nevertheless, the Court's prepared to rule.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Hartman, Anker, Bykerk, McLaughlin et al have damaged the reputation of the profession in ways that would have been unimaginable not long ago.

All in the name of preventing perhaps much smaller damage.

Hartman, Anker, Bykerk, McLaughlin et al:

EPIC FAIL

[SharksFan08]

Why do you think it is such a stretch of the imagination when Cecil Bykerk two days later asked Bruce to step down from the SOA board for opposing FEM?

Why do you think it is such a stretch of the imagination that Cecil Bykerk asked Bruce to step down because of how Bruce handled his opposition to FEM, and Bruce paints this as being asked to step down because of his opposition to FEM?

[Teddy KGB]

Why do you think it is such a stretch of the imagination that Cecil Bykerk asked Bruce to step down because of how Bruce handled his opposition to FEM, and Bruce paints this as being asked to step down because of his opposition to FEM?

Dear SharksFan08,

You haven't posted once about FEM before this thread.


.........The Board has voted unanimously twice to proceed with further steps on FEM, a decision you were a part of and for which you voted. I do not think it’s appropriate for you to be leading efforts to attack it. As a Board member, you have a duty of loyalty not to undermine the decisions and actions of the Board, even if you don’t personally agree with them. I also think that, as a Past President of the SOA, you have a special responsibility to support the Board. I’m disappointed by your actions and I’m asking that you refrain from taking this approach while you’re a member of the SOA Board. Of course, if your conscience won’t permit that, you always have the option of stepping down from the Board..........

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[KidCA]

Dear Teddy KGB,

This thread would be a lot better if it was the meeting minutes, and not the suit Bruce filed (raising an apparent conflict of interest).

Regards,
AO

I completely disagree.

[SharksFan08]

Dear SharksFan08,

Looks like Redacted grabbed his buddy's screenname.

You haven't posted once about FEM before this thread.



Regards,

Teddy KGB

Nice end-run. :roll:

[IMP]

:-?

[Not Mike]

If the board twice voted unanimously on FEM and Bruce is on the board, what am I missing?

[Teddy KGB]

If the board twice voted unanimously on FEM and Bruce is on the board, what am I missing?

Dear Not Mike,

"Exploration".

Unfortunately what some people call "exploration", others interpret as "implementing".

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[Harry]

So who was it that argued this had nothing to do with FEM?

[PhildeAssociate]

So who was it that argued this had nothing to do with FEM?

Dear Harry,

Just about everyone that is pro-FEM. Then about half the people anti-FEM because they wouldn't believe such a thing was possible.

I think Teddy KGB was put on ignore by some people because he suggested that the IAA was involved.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[remilard]

So who was it that argued this had nothing to do with FEM?

American Psycho and Wag, the Dog among others.

[bdschobel]

I like you bolding "Bykerk cited my opposition to a controversial proposal under consideration at the Society of Actuaries, of which he is the President, raising an apparent conflict of interest" as if it is factual and damning, and not just an allegation from Bruce's suit.Are you really saying that I would submit perjured testimony to a Federal Court, when the events I'm describing were witnessed by something like 30 other people? Do you think I'm that stupid? Did you notice that the AAA has not challenged the accuracy of my declaration, even though they had the opportunity?

Bruce

[bdschobel]

You know me very well, I do like that! I also like the willingness to dismiss the two judges who oversaw the arbitration with Sarah Sanford, but cite the comment of this judge to bolster a point.No judges oversaw the Sanford arbitration. There were three arbitrators, and their report was filed with the court, not approved or affirmed by the court. Filing the report of a private arbitration is unusual in the first place -- and totally unnecessary. All that the court needed to know was that the case had been settled by means of arbitration.

Bruce

[SharksFan08]

Are you really saying that I would submit perjured testimony to a Federal Court, when the events I'm describing were witnessed by something like 30 other people? Do you think I'm that stupid? Did you notice that the AAA has not challenged the accuracy of my declaration, even though they had the opportunity?

Bruce

No. I'm not suggesting that those people didn't introduce and second the motion. I'm suggesting that when you say "Bykerk cited my opposition," it might mean he was against the way you handled your opposition and not simply the fact that you were opposed.

For the record, I think how the AAA has handled the whole thing is wrong, and I have no problem with your attempt to clear your name and regain the position. I just think this an obnoxious string of posts by Teddy KGB.

[SharksFan08]

No judges oversaw the Sanford arbitration. There were three arbitrators, and their report was filed with the court, not approved or affirmed by the court. Filing the report of a private arbitration is unusual in the first place -- and totally unnecessary. All that the court needed to know was that the case had been settled by means of arbitration.

Bruce


My apologies. I read elsewhere that was the case. Thanks for the clarification.

[Actuary321]

Are you really saying that I would submit perjured testimony to a Federal Court, when the events I'm describing were witnessed by something like 30 other people? Do you think I'm that stupid? Did you notice that the AAA has not challenged the accuracy of my declaration, even though they had the opportunity?

BruceAnd in addition this information will come out when the AAA board approves and releases the minutes to there "open" meeting of 8/5. So again, why would Bruce have any inclination to even fudge the facts?

[quandaryus]

So what all of this comes down to is:

Bruce and the SOA were involved in a lawsuit which was resolved in binding arbitration, resulting in the SOA paying damages. A letter was written by Dave Hartman and signed by many AAA past presidents requesting Bruce's suspension or resignation as President-Elect of the AAA. An AAA meeting was called to discuss this.

At this meeting, Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin, SOA president and president-elect and members of the SOA Board, took it upon themselves to motion and second for Bruce to be removed as President-Elect. As motivation, they cited (among other things) the dispute over FEM and unhappiness with Bruce's expressed opposition to it.

This despite the facts that (1) no successful attempt has been made to remove Bruce from the SOA Board, where he currently sits; (2) the purported purpose of the meeting was to discuss a matter which Bykerk and McLaughlin, as members of the SOA Board, were personally involved in and should not have been discussing; (3) Bruce's opposition to FEM is strongly echoed by the profession itself, and has nothing at all to do with governance of the AAA.

As the judge said, this whole affair is quite "disgusting" and certainly does not inspire confidence in the leadership of either the SOA or the AAA.

[The Mad Hatter]

Like I said before, some people cannot distinguish the method of opposition from the opposition itself. The idea that Cecil, Mike and 19 past AAA Presidents et al are so tied into FEM that they conspired to take Bruce down is nonsense. It's Bruce's behavior. And it is consistent with a pattern that shows why he is not fit to run AAA. Like Exactuary pointed out, it's as if everyone around here forgot about the Dan Anderson thing. Bruce showed his true colors then. We now know that it is was not isolated.

[SirVLCIV]

Like I said before, some people cannot distinguish the method of opposition from the opposition itself. The idea that Cecil, Mike and 19 past AAA Presidents et al are so tied into FEM that they conspired to take Bruce down is nonsense. It's Bruce's behavior. And it is consistent with a pattern that shows why he is not fit to run AAA. Like Exactuary pointed out, it's as if everyone around here forgot about the Dan Anderson thing. Bruce showed his true colors then. We now know that it is was not isolated.

And this supposed 'pattern of behavior' was ignored when he was voted in unanimously in 2008?

That doesn't vibe.

[SharksFan08]

And in addition this information will come out when the AAA board approves and releases the minutes to there "open" meeting of 8/5. So again, why would Bruce have any inclination to even fudge the facts?

Again, not saying he perjured himself on who introduced the motion. But the bolded part of KGB's post about Cecil "citing" FEM does not necessarily paint the same picture for everybody.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3889660&postcount=429

[sundwarf]

So what all of this comes down to is:

Bruce and the SOA were involved in a lawsuit which was resolved in binding arbitration, resulting in the SOA paying damages. A letter was written by Dave Hartman and signed by many AAA past presidents requesting Bruce's suspension or resignation as President-Elect of the AAA. An AAA meeting was called to discuss this.

At this meeting, Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin, SOA president and president-elect and members of the SOA Board, took it upon themselves to motion and second for Bruce to be removed as President-Elect. As motivation, they cited (among other things) the dispute over FEM and unhappiness with Bruce's expressed opposition to it.

This despite the facts that (1) no successful attempt has been made to remove Bruce from the SOA Board, where he currently sits; (2) the purported purpose of the meeting was to discuss a matter which Bykerk and McLaughlin, as members of the SOA Board, were personally involved in and should not have been discussing; (3) Bruce's opposition to FEM is strongly echoed by the profession itself, and has nothing at all to do with governance of the AAA.

As the judge said, this whole affair is quite "disgusting" and certainly does not inspire confidence in the leadership of either the SOA or the AAA.

:iatp:

And I agree with what the judge said too, in bold.

[cubs1969]

Like I said before, some people cannot distinguish the method of opposition from the opposition itself. The idea that Cecil, Mike and 19 past AAA Presidents et al are so tied into FEM that they conspired to take Bruce down is nonsense. It's Bruce's behavior. And it is consistent with a pattern that shows why he is not fit to run AAA. Like Exactuary pointed out, it's as if everyone around here forgot about the Dan Anderson thing. Bruce showed his true colors then. We now know that it is was not isolated.

Who's Dan Anderson? What does he have to do with this? Is this more SOA dirty laundry? I've been following pretty closely and don't know about this.

[PhildeAssociate]

Like I said before, some people cannot distinguish the method of opposition from the opposition itself. The idea that Cecil, Mike and 19 past AAA Presidents et al are so tied into FEM that they conspired to take Bruce down is nonsense. It's Bruce's behavior. And it is consistent with a pattern that shows why he is not fit to run AAA. Like Exactuary pointed out, it's as if everyone around here forgot about the Dan Anderson thing. Bruce showed his true colors then. We now know that it is was not isolated.

Dear The Mad Hatter,

Name just one.

All I am asking is just one person.

On either the SOA or CAS board that handled Canada FEM more "professionally" than Bruce Schobel. You will not be able to name one name.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[PhildeAssociate]

Again, not saying he perjured himself on who introduced the motion. But the bolded part of KGB's post about Cecil "citing" FEM does not necessarily paint the same picture for everybody.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3889660&postcount=429

Dear SharksFan08,

Cecil has been sitting on this proposal since the 90s.

It is very clear he did not want member input. Cecil Bykerk's handling of this matter is several standard deviations more unprofessional than anything Bruce has done as an elected leader of this profession.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[Roy Hobbs]

Dear SharksFan08,

Cecil has been sitting on this proposal since the 90s.

It is very clear he did not want member input. Cecil Bykerk's handling of this matter is several standard deviations more unprofessional than anything Bruce has done as an elected leader of this profession.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

I've said in a few posts already, I was at presentation Cecil gave in early August updating us on what's going on at the SOA. He spent a large part of the presentation talking about CERA not one mention about FEM.

The very next day the FEM letter comes out...

[Actuary321]

Who's Dan Anderson? What does he have to do with this? Is this more SOA dirty laundry? I've been following pretty closely and don't know about this.Could it be from this thread on CPD? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=2239203)

And I thought this comment from Bruce in that thread was interesting regarding how the SOA governance works.

What you'll get is an opportunity to comment on an exposure draft, at the appropriate time. Nobody has any intention of cramming this down your throat. Still, mandatory CPD has overwhelming support from the leadership of the actuarial organizations. At the end of the day, the SOA is not a pure democracy -- any more than the U.S. or Canada is. If the Board were supposed to implement exactly what the membership requests, based on accurate polling (which hasn't happened yet on this issue, by the way), then you might as well elect machines, not people.

Bruce

[RG]

Yes, that's the Anderson that was discussed in this more recent thread:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3865542&postcount=16

and in this post:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3859072&postcount=72

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Could it be from this thread on CPD? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=2239203)

Thanks for finding that thread; it is a real eye-opener.

[The Mad Hatter]

Thanks for finding that thread; it is a real eye-opener.

Yep, that would be it.

[Wag, the Dog]

Dear SharksFan08,

How do you like that Judge Sullivan called the actions of Hartman, Anker et al disgusting? You like so many other things, I thought you would like this.

Regards,

remilardDid Judge Sullivan literally say "disgusting?" Or is that your editorial opinion?

[remilard]

Judge Sullivan literally said disgusting, assuming the transcript (9/15) is accurate.

Would you like my editorial opinion?

Disgusting, Wag, Disgusting.

[Wag, the Dog]

No judges oversaw the Sanford arbitration. There were three arbitrators, and their report was filed with the court, not approved or affirmed by the court. Filing the report of a private arbitration is unusual in the first place -- and totally unnecessary. All that the court needed to know was that the case had been settled by means of arbitration.

BruceWould you like to explain the last item in the electronic docket in re Sanford v Schobel and SOA where a motion to remove material is denied because Sanford had a right to the record? What Judge Sullivan saw as "disgusting" may have been nothing more than Sanford's right. I can be pretty sure that no one brought this seemingly small point before Judge Sullivan.

[Wag, the Dog]

Judge Sullivan literally said disgusting, assuming the transcript (9/15) is accurate.

Would you like my editorial opinion?

Disgusting, Wag, Disgusting.Yep, now I read it. He said "disgusting." And, now as my punishment, yes I'd like your editorial opinion.

[remilard]

My editorial opinion is that a short sighted strategy to take an extraordinary action in furtherance of the interests of a small number of people caused blow back that damages the entire profession and cannot possibly be contained.

I'm amazed at every day that goes by where nobody apologizes to the rest of us.

[Wag, the Dog]

My apologies. I read elsewhere that was the case. Thanks for the clarification.The word "oversaw" is not legally unambiguous. Read the docket. Every motion was presented to a judge. We cannot really say whether judges "oversaw" the arbitration. I think it may be somewhat fairer to say that they "supervised" it. But that too is not legally unambiguous. Read the docket. Draw your own conclusion.

[dzdydx]

Did Judge Sullivan literally say "disgusting?" Or is that your editorial opinion?

Career Result: Congratulations! with your pristine character, goodwill to all, and extraodinary ability to make convincing factual arguments, you are fit to be a politician or an AAA board member.

Hint: before making your next outrageous claim, open the transcript and do a search for the word or simply read to page 4 of the document.

How can one not be proud to have entered into the actuarial field in truly outstanding times like these!

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the transcript posted on tbakos' website is a forgery

[Wag, the Dog]

Who's Dan Anderson? What does he have to do with this? Is this more SOA dirty laundry? I've been following pretty closely and don't know about this.I thought you'd never ask. This appeared on the general lists of the CIA. Having been sent to thousands of FSA's and FCIA's, it is in the public domain.
From: Fred Thompson [mailto:Fred@ttactuarial.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 8:15 PM
To: general@lists.actuaries.ca
Cc: general@lists.actuaries.ca
Subject: SoA President elect MUST resign

Dear Bruce:

I was disgusted and appalled when I read the following e mail that you sent to Dan Anderson and several others. In fact, my stomach is churning. My revulsion is physical.

My first thought, when I read it, was 'who is Bruce Schobel?' When I found that you are the president elect of the SoA I was astounded. I also thought that perhaps I was prescient- I did not vote for you.

...

I have always been very proud of my Fellowship in the SoA. I have always had great respect for the SoA. It breaks my heart to think that such an honoured institution would have a foul mouthed lout as president elect. It is too bad that we the voters did not have this e mail to refer to when selecting a candidate for whom to vote.

I think that you should resign. I call on those who were copied on your e mail to come forward and support this suggestion. For example, Mike Lombardi and I do not always agree but I certainly respect him as a person and respect his right to hold views with which I disagree. I can say much the same thing about Jim Murta. I expect that these two will now stand up and be counted.

...

Fred Thompson

Here is the e mail and the list of those who received copies.

From: bdschobel@aol.com

To: dan.anderson@sympatico.ca ; hpanjer@uwaterloo.ca ; Claude.Penland@dwsimpson.com

Cc: mike.lombardi@towersperrin.com ; ekessler@soa.org ; jim.murta@shaw.ca ; chuck@myactuary.com ; mrhardy@uwaterloo.ca ; kathleen.wong@axa-equitable.com ; tom@actuarialoutpost.com ; mh@hawkconsult.com ; msmith@wiltonre.bm

Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:47 PM

Subject: Re: banning SOA/CIA member from discussion forum addressing CPD issues

Dan,

Warning: very crude language inside the spoilerYou have shit dribbling from your lips. Sorry if that isn't sufficiently presidential for you. Really, you are just full of it. There is no "symbiotic" relationship between the SOA and D.W. Simpson, no conspiracy between Claude Penland and me (in fact, we haven't even communicated with each other in a couple months, at least), no attempts to curry favor on either side, nothing of the kind. Period. End of story. Stop telling all of us that we have trouble understanding you. We're just as smart as you are. We understand you just fine. You are nuts. Go explore your conspiracy theories with Oliver Stone and Mel Gibson. But leave all of us alone. We have real work to do.

BruceMods if you take this down after the explanations you have given me about what is and is not in the public record, I will be disappointed in you.

[remilard]

So Dan Anderson accused the SOA of conspiring with DW Simpson in some way (was there some quoted text you cut off, Wag, why would you do such a thing?) and Bruce blew him off.

Is the Warning: reference to crude language inside the spoiler "shit dribbling off your lips" part the objectionable part?

Really are we that precious that we have to ruin the profession because a guy used some harsh words to describe someone who was likely, well, talking a bunch of crap?

[tommie frazier]

im only 25 pages or so into the 9/9 transcript. my, the AAA attorney seems to be drowning.

IANAL, but i don't think you want the presiding judge saying Difficult getting straight answers out of you, Counsel.

[tommie frazier]

read the two transcripts. i enjoy reading the judge's questions.

[Jeremy Gold]

So Dan Anderson accused the SOA of conspiring with DW Simpson in some way (was there some quoted text you cut off, Wag, why would you do such a thing?) and Bruce blew him off.

Is the Warning: reference to crude language inside the spoiler "shit dribbling off your lips" part the objectionable part?

Really are we that precious that we have to ruin the profession because a guy used some harsh words to describe someone who was likely, well, talking a bunch of crap?FWIW, here is my defense of Bruce written at that time:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=3859072#post3859072

At that time, as you can see by my e-mail. remilard, I was a die hard supporter of Bruce, not that different from many on the AO today. I didn't think much of the bad language. I defended Bruce as simply more colorful in his language than the rest of us. Two years later I have seen more than enough of an anger that erupts time and time again, an anger that hurts the target and bystanders as well. We are all bystanders now. We are all getting hurt. He has cleverly directed your anger at people you have never met who have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering. Bruce has served the AO better than the gentlemen he accuses now. That kind of service pays dividends. Frankly, I wish that some of these other leaders had been the kind of great communicators that Bruce has shown himself to be right here. But do not mistake his calls for transparency for transparency.

[SirVLCIV]

FWIW, here is my defense of Bruce written at that time:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=3859072#post3859072

At that time, as you can see by my e-mail. remilard, I was a die hard supporter of Bruce, not that different from many on the AO today. I didn't think much of the bad language. I defended Bruce as simply more colorful in his language than the rest of us. Two years later I have seen more than enough of an anger that erupts time and time again, an anger that hurts the target and bystanders as well. We are all bystanders now. We are all getting hurt. He has cleverly directed your anger at people you have never met who have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering. Bruce has served the AO better than the gentlemen he accuses now. That kind of service pays dividends. Frankly, I wish that some of these other leaders had been the kind of great communicators that Bruce has shown himself to be right here. But do not mistake his calls for transparency for transparency.

And as I've stated before, I really don't care whether people don't like him, etc.

He was removed illegally. He was removed in what appears to be a political coup that has nothing to do with serving the membership of the AAA.

He was voted in unanimously just last year. If any supposed 'non-professionalism' issues are present now, they were present then.

[asdfasdf]

No time to read this all, what's the process to have Cecil removed as SOA president, the revelation of his earlier involvement in the UK move does not strike me the right way, nor him putting forth the motion to remove. It's time to storm both palaces people!

[campbell]

Just wait a month or so and Cecil won't be SOA president anymore.

[bdschobel]

...I didn't think much of the bad language. I defended Bruce as simply more colorful in his language than the rest of us. Two years later I have seen more than enough of an anger that erupts time and time again, an anger that hurts the target and bystanders as well. We are all bystanders now. We are all getting hurt. He has cleverly directed your anger at people you have never met who have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering. Bruce has served the AO better than the gentlemen he accuses now. That kind of service pays dividends. Frankly, I wish that some of these other leaders had been the kind of great communicators that Bruce has shown himself to be right here. But do not mistake his calls for transparency for transparency.I'm happy that you don't think much of the "bad language" in my email to Dan Anderson (and not to all the actuaries in Canada, as some have alleged). Are actuaries members of the "prissiest profession"? Are we so sensitive and squeamish that we can't bear to hear a four-letter word occasionally? Poor Mr. Thompson: "disgusted and appalled," "stomach churning," "physical revulsion." Spare me. Talk to your kids some time. And if Mr. Thompson was in such physical distress merely from reading an email, then why did he feel the need to share that email with over 1000 Canadian actuaries? What was the point of that? Misery loves company, maybe? By the way, many dozens of Canadian actuaries, including several past presidents of the CIA, called and wrote to me, expressing their appreciation that someone had at long last taken on Dan Anderson. So, enough on that subject.

Jeremy, you claim to know a secret side of me, having seen "an anger that erupts time and time again, an anger that hurts the target and bystanders as well." The people here on the Outpost know me, too. I have been a constant presence for more than 5 years, posting nearly every day. I have exchanged private messages with many people here, spoken by telephone with quite a few, and met hundreds at actuarial meetings of various kinds, including Fellowship Admissions Courses. I'll let people judge me based on their own experiences. And you can read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a novella written by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson and first published in 1886. Fiction can be entertaining.

If you know people who "have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering," then I'd like to know who these people are. My 30-year record of contributions to our profession stacks up well against anybody's, including yours. And I'm not accusing anybody of anything. Facts speak for themselves.

You say again and again that my "calls for transparency" are not transparency. My record here also speaks for itself. I demanded that passmarks on preliminary exams be released, and that change was made. I demanded that vote tallies in SOA elections be released, and that change was made. I began the new procedure of releasing "headlines" from SOA Board meetings right after the meetings end. I am a constant presence here, telling people what's going on within their organizations. Yet I'm just feigning transparency, right? It's all just an act? I'll let people draw their own conclusions about that.

Bruce

[mlschop]

And as I've stated before, I really don't care whether people don't like him, etc.

He was removed illegally. He was removed in what appears to be a political coup that has nothing to do with serving the membership of the AAA.

He was voted in unanimously just last year. If any supposed 'non-professionalism' issues are present now, they were present then.

:iatp:

I'm happy that you don't think much of the "bad language" in my email to Dan Anderson (and not to all the actuaries in Canada, as some have alleged). Are actuaries members of the "prissiest profession"? Are we so sensitive and squeamish that we can't bear to hear a four-letter word occasionally? Poor Mr. Thompson: "disgusted and appalled," "stomach churning," "physical revulsion." Spare me. Talk to your kids some time.

:lol: :iatp:

Seriously...I hear "four-letter words" in the office on a daily basis. While I probably wouldn't have said what Bruce said in an email (that wasn't to one of my close buddies), I wouldn't have even blinked an eye at it's content.

Is the OP of this thread speaking the truth? If Bykerk and McLaughlin really were the ones that made the motion (and seconded) Bruce's removal, then this has all now been taken to the next level with me. I know there was speculation that FEM was involved, but now this pretty much confirms it. Are leaders of the AAA not supposed to have an opinion?

[Dumbdumb]

FWIW, here is my defense of Bruce written at that time:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=3859072#post3859072

At that time, as you can see by my e-mail. remilard, I was a die hard supporter of Bruce, not that different from many on the AO today. I didn't think much of the bad language. I defended Bruce as simply more colorful in his language than the rest of us. Two years later I have seen more than enough of an anger that erupts time and time again, an anger that hurts the target and bystanders as well. We are all bystanders now. We are all getting hurt. He has cleverly directed your anger at people you have never met who have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering. Bruce has served the AO better than the gentlemen he accuses now. That kind of service pays dividends. Frankly, I wish that some of these other leaders had been the kind of great communicators that Bruce has shown himself to be right here. But do not mistake his calls for transparency for transparency.

1) As I've noted, I've dealt with both Bruce, and members of the upper statosphere previously (though not necessarily members of the AAA board). And my experience, unlike yours, dictates that my support is behind Bruce. I can understand if he gets frustrated, look at how he's been treated right now. People with hidden agendas and personal politics leveraging him out of the presidency.
2) For those that recall the Dan Andersan saga, it wasn't Bruce that was acting irrationally - not even close. there was some very crazy stuff going on there and it wasn't from Bruce. Cherry picking some posts from that conversation is pretty poor form - but does speak to the kind of resistance that Bruce is up against.

Bruce isn't afraid to speak his mind from what it looks like. Some people have their feelings hurt. To quote from a fish called wanda, 'Good'.

[remilard]

FWIW, here is my defense of Bruce written at that time:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=3859072#post3859072

At that time, as you can see by my e-mail. remilard, I was a die hard supporter of Bruce, not that different from many on the AO today. I didn't think much of the bad language. I defended Bruce as simply more colorful in his language than the rest of us. Two years later I have seen more than enough of an anger that erupts time and time again, an anger that hurts the target and bystanders as well. We are all bystanders now. We are all getting hurt. He has cleverly directed your anger at people you have never met who have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering. Bruce has served the AO better than the gentlemen he accuses now. That kind of service pays dividends. Frankly, I wish that some of these other leaders had been the kind of great communicators that Bruce has shown himself to be right here. But do not mistake his calls for transparency for transparency.

Bruce Schobel isn't directing my anger anywhere. I am witness actual damage to the profession (not hypothetical damage that Bruce might have caused which is a moot point now because others caused it for him) and directing my anger at those directly responsible for it.

That seems reasonable to me.

If Hartman, Anker et al had chose to let sleeping dogs lie rather than to disgustingly and intentionally cause damage to the profession in an apparent attempt to prove that there was damage to be done, then maybe there would have been a situation where Bruce Schobel was the direct cause of some tangible damage and I would have directed anger towards him as appropriate.

[Shaft]

FWIW, here is my defense of Bruce written at that time:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=3859072#post3859072

He has cleverly directed your anger at people you have never met who have served the profession far better than Bruce over many lifetimes of volunteering.
OK, start the list:

[Dumbdumb]

And if Mr. Thompson was in such physical distress merely from reading an email, then why did he feel the need to share that email with over 1000 Canadian actuaries? What was the point of that? Misery loves company, maybe? By the way, many dozens of Canadian actuaries, including several past presidents of the CIA, called and wrote to me, expressing their appreciation that someone had at long last taken on Dan Anderson. So, enough on that subject.
The above is an example of what I see as going on here.

It's hard to understand Bruce's reaction without having enjoyed Dan Anderson's side of it. Dan Anderson's ravings were sheer lunacy. Bruce's response was more than appropriate based on what was being said at the time, including the use of words like poo-poo. Which by the way seems to have been in a private email.

Now Bruce is getting tarred with:
- having an extreme reaction. On it's own, extreme. In light of the circumstances at the time, not actually extreme. But it's being presented as an example all the same.
- somehow having injured the industry by doing this. Except it was in a private email. Bruce didn't share it - someone else did. Anyone wonder why that was? Anyone wonder why someone, apparently unrelated to the parties involved, decides to share that email with a public list? What's going on there?

One might be lead to think:
- Bruce's reaction wasn't extreme, but actually appropriate.
- If you accept that, then the sharing of it deliberately to the public, with associated bashing of Bruce smells like someone's doing this to deliberately smear Bruce.

What's really surprising now that this has been raised, is how long it seems Bruce has been putting up with this kind of nonsense.

Who's the Fred guy in the email? How did he get the email? What possessed him to share it publicly, along with his own acidic comments (ironic, when accusing someone else of the same thing. ) Questions nobody cares about now, but one might wonder if there aren't more shady connections going on.

[mlschop]

Bruce Schobel isn't directing my anger anywhere. I am witness actual damage to the profession (not hypothetical damage that Bruce might have caused which is a moot point now because others caused it for him) and directing my anger at those directly responsible for it.

I think people are also blowing the "ruining the profession" thing out of proportion. No one in my company is really talking about this topic at all. I think - for the most part - the general actuarial community doesn't care (whether it's apathy or ignorance, I'm not sure).

I think the overall damage to the profession will be minimal - regardless of the outcome.

[I'm also not a "the sky is falling" kinda person. While I oppose FEM, I don't think it's implementation would be the downfall of the actuarial profession. *GASP* Just like I don't think FAP "devalued" the ASA/FSA designations. *GASP GASP*]

[Actuary321]

And in addition this information will come out when the AAA board approves and releases the minutes to there "open" meeting of 8/5. So again, why would Bruce have any inclination to even fudge the facts?Having read the transcript, I am now wondering if there will be any minutes. The AAA lawyer seemed to say there are no minutes. I am not sure if that means there currently aren't any minutes or that no minutes will be created.

Anyone have any idea? Doesn't seem like Tom has received a response to his request for that information yet.

[campbell]

From Tom's site [you have to scroll down]

UPDATE [posted 9/11/09]: On Wednesday, 9/9/09, I called Andrea Sweeny to inquire as to the status of my information request. I did not expect that the Academy Secretary/Treasurer would respond relative to the 8/5/09 Board meeting and she didn't - reciting canned language that the request had been forwarded to the Academy's attorney because of pending litigation.

I indicated that surely this litigation did not encompass the information I requested relative to the 5/21/09 Board meeting at which, apparently, a split of the Secretary/Treasurer position was voted on. However, Ms. Sweeney recited the same canned language.

I am guessing that the members will learn about what the Academy Board actually did re: the Secretary/Treasurer split at the Annual meeting in Boston on October 26 when they announce (we can hope) the results of their officer-director elections from the Academy Board meeting to occur on October 20, 2009.


This was Tom's original request for info:
http://www.bakosenterprises.com/Academy/AAA%20Sweeny%20Request.pdf

He asks for two separate items - one regarding the Secretary/Treasurer split and the other regarding the motion to remove Bruce.

Both of these are items that would properly be on the minutes of a Board meeting.

[Wag, the Dog]

The above is an example of what I see as going on here.

It's hard to understand Bruce's reaction without having enjoyed Dan Anderson's side of it. Dan Anderson's ravings were sheer lunacy. Bruce's response was more than appropriate based on what was being said at the time, including the use of words like poo-poo. Which by the way seems to have been in a private email.http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3822474&postcount=558

[Lucy]

Bruce Schobel isn't directing my anger anywhere. I am witness actual damage to the profession (not hypothetical damage that Bruce might have caused which is a moot point now because others caused it for him) and directing my anger at those directly responsible for it.

That seems reasonable to me.

If Hartman, Anker et al had chose to let sleeping dogs lie rather than to disgustingly and intentionally cause damage to the profession in an apparent attempt to prove that there was damage to be done, then maybe there would have been a situation where Bruce Schobel was the direct cause of some tangible damage and I would have directed anger towards him as appropriate.:iatp: making a fuss about the potential damage to the AAA from something that was expunged long ago was a really bad move, and caused all the damage they were afriad of, and more. But

I think people are also blowing the "ruining the profession" thing out of proportion. No one in my company is really talking about this topic at all. I think - for the most part - the general actuarial community doesn't care (whether it's apathy or ignorance, I'm not sure).

I think the overall damage to the profession will be minimal - regardless of the outcome.Yeah, we look bad. But it's not like we look bad about something we are supposed to be good at (like estimating reserves). The profession already has a reputation for social ineptitude. Lots of companies and boards do stupid things that make the news from time to time, this one doesn't stand out to any of my non-actuary friends. This too shall pass.

[campbell]

From Tom's site [you have to scroll down]




This was Tom's original request for info:
http://www.bakosenterprises.com/Academy/AAA%20Sweeny%20Request.pdf

He asks for two separate items - one regarding the Secretary/Treasurer split and the other regarding the motion to remove Bruce.

Both of these are items that would properly be on the minutes of a Board meeting.

It just occurred to me that if the Secretary is a solitary position [as opposed to the current combined Secretary/Treasurer], perhaps minutes of Academy meetings could be drafted more quickly and promulgated more widely than is currently the case.

Always look for the bright side...

[Irish Blues]

Bruce Schobel isn't directing my anger anywhere. I am witness actual damage to the profession (not hypothetical damage that Bruce might have caused which is a moot point now because others caused it for him) and directing my anger at those directly responsible for it.

I think people are also blowing the "ruining the profession" thing out of proportion. No one in my company is really talking about this topic at all. I think - for the most part - the general actuarial community doesn't care (whether it's apathy or ignorance, I'm not sure).

I think the overall damage to the profession will be minimal - regardless of the outcome.
No one in my company is talking about this, either. However, I have friends who aren't in the actuarial field that have read the NYT article and asked me, WTF? They're amazed at what they've seen, and after I filled them in on a few more of the details, it's even more WTF? from them. It's that group of people that we are [presumably] marketing our skill set to - not each other.

Whether this entire saga has caused permanent damage to the profession remains to be seen - but the more details that come out, the bigger the shiner this profession is going to carry in the short-term and the longer that shiner is going to be around. I'm not credentialed [yet] and I'm embarassed at how some of the people that are supposed to be "leaders" in this profession have handled themselves. If this is the kind of leadership we can expect going forward, I can't wait for the day when I can vote for new leaders.

[Dumbdumb]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3822474&postcount=558
So we can speculate on why Bruce released that.

Care to speculate why whoever it was (too lazy to look it up) posted Bruce's email? I'd like some speculations on why that was done, particularly in light of two things: 1) current events and 2) this being raised by Jeremy Gold during the current events.

Nothing to see here I'm sure.

If you would rather, you can look it as a pattern of Bruce doing whatever he feels he needs to, and speaking strongly as well as a pattern of others looking to cast aspersions on Bruce - and apparently over a period of many years as well.

Bruce sure isn't hiding his actions or his intentions. Looks like others are.

[Harry]

So what all of this comes down to is:

Bruce and the SOA were involved in a lawsuit which was resolved in binding arbitration, resulting in the SOA paying damages. A letter was written by Dave Hartman and signed by many AAA past presidents requesting Bruce's suspension or resignation as President-Elect of the AAA. An AAA meeting was called to discuss this.

At this meeting, Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin, SOA president and president-elect and members of the SOA Board, took it upon themselves to motion and second for Bruce to be removed as President-Elect. As motivation, they cited (among other things) the dispute over FEM and unhappiness with Bruce's expressed opposition to it.

This despite the facts that (1) no successful attempt has been made to remove Bruce from the SOA Board, where he currently sits; (2) the purported purpose of the meeting was to discuss a matter which Bykerk and McLaughlin, as members of the SOA Board, were personally involved in and should not have been discussing; (3) Bruce's opposition to FEM is strongly echoed by the profession itself, and has nothing at all to do with governance of the AAA.

As the judge said, this whole affair is quite "disgusting" and certainly does not inspire confidence in the leadership of either the SOA or the AAA.
Excellent summary.

[Dr. Claw]

No one in my company is really talking about this topic at all.

No one in my company is talking about this, either.

Isn't this a problem? I have passed along the ny times article to as many colleagues as possible. I also pass along Bakos' site with the disclaimer that he seems to support BDS.

Regardless of who's on whose side, news of this debacle should be passed along to colleagues, no?

[honeyweis]

Just wait a month or so and Cecil won't be SOA president anymore.

But the individual who seconded the motion will be.

[Dr. Claw]

But the individual who seconded the motion will be.

the new pres-elect is anti-FEM, no?

[sundwarf]

the new pres-elect is anti-FEM, no?

No... he removed his "let's keep the current exam system the same for a while" statement from his website couple weeks before FEM came out. I am not 100% sure however, someone better confirm this.

[campbell]

No... he removed his "let's keep the current exam system the same for a while" statement from his website couple weeks before FEM came out. I am not 100% sure however, someone better confirm this.

I believe Dr. Claw was referring to Don Segal.

I will find his statement in a moment.

Here is his official statement:
http://www.donaldjsegalfsa.com/FEMProposal.aspx



On August 6, I posted the following comment on the Actuarial Outpost:

Graduates of actuarial science programs generally do very well on the exams. Such programs give them a "leg up". But their knowledge still has to be validated by the same exam taken by all candidates.

While the Board voted to explore the issue, it has by no means voted in favor of it. Having seen the merits of how the exam system strengthens our credential throughout my career, I am not in favor of such a change. It would take very strong, convincing arguments to persuade me that this is a good idea.

[DudeMan]

Is the OP of this thread speaking the truth? If Bykerk and McLaughlin really were the ones that made the motion (and seconded) Bruce's removal, then this has all now been taken to the next level with me. I know there was speculation that FEM was involved, but now this pretty much confirms it. Are leaders of the AAA not supposed to have an opinion?

ITA

Bykerk/McLaughlin motion to remove Bruce via telephone....what a couple of chickens. They are so drunk with power, they don't even think they need to follow proper procedures to do it either.

So what exactly is Bruce guilty of here? Using a public channel to voice his opinion and inform the SOA membership of FEM proposal updates?

I would rather have leadership who keeps the members (and prospective members) in the know regarding big educational design changes. Bruce recieved backlash from the FAP redesign, but he didn't try hiding it from anyone.

Bykerk has been working on FEM for over 10 years, but hardly any members knew about it (and its progress) until Bruce posted about it last month. If he truly believed the FEM proposal was a step forward for our profession, then he should have no problem successfully communicating it to the membership and gaining their support.

It is now my perception that he was trying to sneak FEM behind the backs' of the membership, and use his power to punish anyone who reveals the agenda to the members. IMO, his secretiveness reflects badly upon him as a leader of our profession.

[asdfasdf]

ITA

Bykerk/McLaughlin motion to remove Bruce via telephone....what a couple of chickens. They are so drunk with power, they don't even think they need to follow proper procedures to do it either.

So what exactly is Bruce guilty of here? Using a public channel to voice his opinion and inform the SOA membership of FEM proposal updates?

I would rather have leadership who keeps the members (and prospective members) in the know regarding big educational design changes. Bruce recieved backlash from the FAP redesign, but he didn't try hiding it from anyone.

Bykerk has been working on FEM for over 10 years, but hardly any members knew about it (and its progress) until Bruce posted about it last month. If he truly believed the FEM proposal was a step forward for our profession, then he should have no problem successfully communicating it to the membership and gaining their support.

It is now my perception that he was trying to sneak FEM behind the backs' of the membership, and use his power to punish anyone who reveals the agenda to the members. IMO, his secretiveness reflects badly upon him as a leader of our profession.

:iatp:

What I'm still failing to grasp is WHY there is a group so dead set on getting FEM through, why do they want it so bad, why do they think it's so important?

[Will Durant]

the new pres-elect is anti-FEM, no?
The incoming pres-elect (Don Segal) is anti-FEM. Mike McLaughlin, the current pres-elect who will become President in October, is not.

[cubs1969]

This won't damage the AAA's credibility or reputation. Something that could be seen as impacting the Academy's ability to give an impartial perspective on an issue would be troubling. Something like a vice-president of Wellpoint chairing the AAA's Federal Health Committee might get some people wondering. But we're too professional and Wellpoint doesn't have any desire to impact the health care debate.

[Arthur Kade]

If he truly believed the FEM proposal was a step forward for our profession, then he should have no problem successfully communicating it to the membership and gaining their support.
I don't know. Have you ever heard Cecil speak? Not exactly the most logical orator I've ever heard.

[DudeMan]

I don't know. Have you ever heard Cecil speak? Not exactly the most logical orator I've ever heard.

maybe not him personally, but some representive from the FEM council

[honeyweis]

ITA

Bykerk/McLaughlin motion to remove Bruce via telephone....what a couple of chickens. They are so drunk with power, they don't even think they need to follow proper procedures to do it either.

So what exactly is Bruce guilty of here? Using a public channel to voice his opinion and inform the SOA membership of FEM proposal updates?

I would rather have leadership who keeps the members (and prospective members) in the know regarding big educational design changes. Bruce recieved backlash from the FAP redesign, but he didn't try hiding it from anyone.

Bykerk has been working on FEM for over 10 years, but hardly any members knew about it (and its progress) until Bruce posted about it last month. If he truly believed the FEM proposal was a step forward for our profession, then he should have no problem successfully communicating it to the membership and gaining their support.

It is now my perception that he was trying to sneak FEM behind the backs' of the membership, and use his power to punish anyone who reveals the agenda to the members. IMO, his secretiveness reflects badly upon him as a leader of our profession.

My understanding is that ALL of the special directors (which consist of the pres and pres-elec of the other 4 US-based actuarial organizations) voted to remove Bruce. So when talking about the SOA's role in this mess, let's not forget that the CAS, CCA and ASPA were a part of the action as well.

[DudeMan]

What I'm still failing to grasp is WHY there is a group so dead set on getting FEM through, why do they want it so bad, why do they think it's so important?

same here. I just want to hear their reasoning. Who knows, maybe I'd even agree with it :shrug:. But their inability and unwillingness to communicate their ideas paints the picture of an alterior motive for pushing the proposal.

[JMO]

Bykerk has been working on FEM for over 10 years, but hardly any members knew about it (and its progress) until Bruce posted about it last month.
I have to disagree somewhat. The CIA concept was posted in early* 2008 here on this board. Nobody got very excited about it then. But when the sudden push was put on to get the final draft out (15 months later) many of us were still hopeful that something reasonable would be available for us to discuss.

It was the CONTENT of the draft that got people excited, not the celebrity of the Bruce. The clumsy handling of the timing didn't get the FEM proponents many brownie points, either.

* I'm too lazy to find the thread, but the CIA document was dated Feb 2008 and the link was here fairly soon after it came out. If I may use the word disingenuous again, the CIA's claim that they had support from CAS and SOA appears not to be the case, although the SOA at least did agree to look into the idea. Looking into it was what got unanimous support from the SOA board. Seems like a reasonable thing for Bruce to go along with, as long as "looking into it" wasn't just a euphemism for pushing it down our throats.

[campbell]

Here is the original thread for when the CIA proposal originally came out:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=131439

I commented on it a lot then.

[DudeMan]

My understanding is that ALL of the special directors (which consist of the pres and pres-elec of the other 4 US-based actuarial organizations) voted to remove Bruce. So when talking about the SOA's role in this mess, let's not forget that the CAS, CCA and ASPA were a part of the action as well.

granted. This leaves me with a question. Did the other special directors truly want him removed, or were they just playing politics and scratching Bykerk's back in exchange for a future back scratch?

As someone pointed out earlier, the vote wouldn't have occured in there wasn't a first and second motion for it. If Bykerk/McLaughlin did not motion, would one of the other special directors step up and do it?

[campbell]

By the way, they had to know that the response might not be good to FEM, given what had happened in the SOA twenty years previously [and I'm sure some of the people involved remembered what happened then].

Given that FEM didn't go over well then, and there was a heavy response via petition, in the days before email... I think that meant they needed to make an even stronger case now.

Especially since five-year+ ASAs may vote for Board members now [and might not be pleased with having an ASA be the equivalent of an undergrad degree]. The previous FEM had been undone by a Board vote [after having been implemented via Board vote], so voting ASAs could band together behind anti-FEM Board candidates.

[MountainHawk]

Here is the original thread for when the CIA proposal originally came out:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=131439

I commented on it a lot then.
the original post basically said the CIA was going to give exemptions, but the SOA and CAS weren't really planning on following along. My impression was 'wow, that's dumb, they'll trap Canadians in the Canadian market because they'll be FCIA but not FSA or FCAS.'

[Dumbdumb]

:iatp:

What I'm still failing to grasp is WHY there is a group so dead set on getting FEM through, why do they want it so bad, why do they think it's so important?
$

[Actuary321]

I don't know. Have you ever heard Cecil speak? Not exactly the most logical orator I've ever heard.
And didn't someone say they heard Cecil speak recently (July?) about the top topics on the SOA agenda and that FEM didn't come up?

[asdfasdf]

$

Whose money? More for the handful of universities that get accredited, more for the SOA as an organization because there will be more paying members? I'm not disagreeing, it likely is money, I just want to understand the whole situation.

[Shaft]

But the individual who seconded the motion will be.And he is well qualified to opine on the merits of the US actuarial exam system as he has NEVER failed an SOA exam! :yikes:

...and why would that be?

[Anonymouse]

the original post basically said the CIA was going to give exemptions, but the SOA and CAS weren't really planning on following along. My impression was 'wow, that's dumb, they'll trap Canadians in the Canadian market because they'll be FCIA but not FSA or FCAS.'

And the Canadian universities typically graduate far more people than there are entry level spots. It doesn't look so bad if you're senior management at a Canadian insurance company.

[PhildeAssociate]

I have to disagree somewhat. The CIA concept was posted in early* 2008 here on this board. Nobody got very excited about it then. But when the sudden push was put on to get the final draft out (15 months later) many of us were still hopeful that something reasonable would be available for us to discuss.


Dear JMO,

Excuse me.

The reason people did not get excited about it is because I did not see the post. Otherwise I would have posted it in every forum in 2008, and Mike McLaughlin would have never been elected SOA-PE.

Before August 2009, very few people read the Chat with Candidates forum section.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[PhildeAssociate]

My understanding is that ALL of the special directors (which consist of the pres and pres-elec of the other 4 US-based actuarial organizations) voted to remove Bruce. So when talking about the SOA's role in this mess, let's not forget that the CAS, CCA and ASPA were a part of the action as well.

Dear honeyweis,

Yes unfortunately I learned this the hard way.

As I see it, if I were to pick a board to reject FEM, I would pick the SOA over the CAS. Even with all the evidence posted here about SOA candidates.

It's incredibly unfortunate. I am very disappointed in the Casualty Actuarial Society.

Anyone who needs evidence of this, please do two things:

1. Get the August 2009 Actuarial Review, go to the bottom right corner of page 22 of the "Random Sample Section". This is what the CAS did after Cecil Bykerk strongly encouraged all actuarial societies to notify members about FEM in June 2008.
2. Ask yourself a question. Did you know about the 2011 education changes before they were implemented? Were you given an exposure draft to comment? Do you even know what the 2011 education changes are?

CAS has had a committee, "Liaison to the Inst. of Actuaries/Faculty of Actuaries Future Education Strategy (https://netforum.casact.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Webcode=CommitteeDirectoryDetail&cmt_key=3cebc6b2-98cb-4bc5-9019-6521ab083516&cmt_name=Liaison%20to%20the%20Inst.%20of%20Actuari es/Faculty%20of%20Actuaries%20Future%20Education%20St rategy)" since AT LEAST as far back as 2004.

Given that there was a joint meeting in 2000 where the SOA and CAS agreed to the general principles of the UK Future Education strategy, I'm willing to bet it goes back much farther than 2004.

I'm incredibly disappointed that Arlie Proctor and Dan Roth did not notify the members of this. They were/are liasons to the UK Future Education Strategy.

There was once a thread I started, Arlie Proctor or Bruce Schobel? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=129709) It is pretty clear that I would change my vote.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[remilard]

No one in my company is talking about this, either. However, I have friends who aren't in the actuarial field that have read the NYT article and asked me, WTF? They're amazed at what they've seen, and after I filled them in on a few more of the details, it's even more WTF? from them. It's that group of people that we are [presumably] marketing our skill set to - not each other.

Whether this entire saga has caused permanent damage to the profession remains to be seen - but the more details that come out, the bigger the shiner this profession is going to carry in the short-term and the longer that shiner is going to be around. I'm not credentialed [yet] and I'm embarassed at how some of the people that are supposed to be "leaders" in this profession have handled themselves. If this is the kind of leadership we can expect going forward, I can't wait for the day when I can vote for new leaders.

:iatp:

I'm not worried about how actuaries feel about the profession. That isn't the point of the profession, to inspire trust among its members. In the end actuaries will approve of the profession on balance because people do not do things they do not approve of or they rationalize the things they do or some combination thereof.

I am worried about hurting the public image of the profession, though it is hard to say now what the fallout may be.

I am more worried that:

whereas health insurance may soon be federally regulated and
whereas life insurance may be federally regulated in the near future as well and
whereas actuaries are not generally popular with politicians

we have provided an excellent excuse to have ourselves made less relevant in a new federally regulated world.

[MountainHawk]

Dear honeyweis,

Yes unfortunately I learned this the hard way.

As I see it, if I were to pick a board to reject FEM, I would pick the SOA over the CAS. Even with all the evidence posted here about SOA candidates.

It's incredibly unfortunate. I am very disappointed in the Casualty Actuarial Society.

Anyone who needs evidence of this, please do two things:

1. Get the August 2009 Actuarial Review, go to the bottom right corner of page 22 of the "Random Sample Section". This is what the CAS did after Cecil Bykerk strongly encouraged all actuarial societies to notify members about FEM in June 2008.
2. Ask yourself a question. Did you know about the 2011 education changes before they were implemented? Were you given an exposure draft to comment? Do you even know what the 2011 education changes are?

CAS has had a committee, "Liaison to the Inst. of Actuaries/Faculty of Actuaries Future Education Strategy (https://netforum.casact.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Webcode=CommitteeDirectoryDetail&cmt_key=3cebc6b2-98cb-4bc5-9019-6521ab083516&cmt_name=Liaison%20to%20the%20Inst.%20of%20Actuari es/Faculty%20of%20Actuaries%20Future%20Education%20St rategy)" since AT LEAST as far back as 2004.

Given that there was a joint meeting in 2000 where the SOA and CAS agreed to the general principles of the UK Future Education strategy, I'm willing to bet it goes back much farther than 2004.

I'm incredibly disappointed that Arlie Proctor and Dan Roth did not notify the members of this. They were/are liasons to the UK Future Education Strategy.

There was once a thread I started, Arlie Proctor or Bruce Schobel? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=129709) It is pretty clear that I would change my vote.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate
The CAS had at least 1 webinar about the 2011 education changes before implementation. My entire company was there.

[remilard]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3822474&postcount=558

Wag, I'm not sure anyone is complaining about the poo poo email being posted here. Certainly I am not and DumbDumb was not.

It seems like some quoted text (Dan Anderson's email immediately preceding Schobel's and perhaps others) was intentionally omitted in order to craft a frame of reference for the poo poo email that is different from the real frame of reference.

We want more of these emails posted, not to have Schobel's not posted.

[JMO]

Dear JMO,

Excuse me.

The reason people did not get excited about it is because I did not see the post. Otherwise I would have posted it in every forum in 2008, and Mike McLaughlin would have never been elected SOA-PE.

Before August 2009, very few people read the Chat with Candidates forum section.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate
I cannot take any responsibility for your failure to visit the candidate forum, particularly before elections. Just sayin'

[Irish Blues]

2. Ask yourself a question. Did you know about the 2011 education changes before they were implemented? Were you given an exposure draft to comment? Do you even know what the 2011 education changes are?
Yes, I did know about the changes.

Yes, I did voice my concerns. I had more than a few - especially on the "you must have credit for the fellowship-level Advanced Reserving, Ratemaking and ERM exam to sign statements" tag that got lobbed out late. [Which still begs the question: why not just make it an associate-level exam instead of setting up the situation where there will be ACAS's that can't sign necessary statements?]

I'd be surprised if anyone gave my comments so much as lip service, seeing as how nothing changed. I expect it got a :rolleyes: and then lobbed into the trash can.

[Devilish]

[Which still begs the question: why not just make it an associate-level exam instead of setting up the situation where there will be ACAS's that can't sign necessary statements?]


Maybe this?

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3902916&postcount=55

[The Mad Hatter]

:iatp:

What I'm still failing to grasp is WHY there is a group so dead set on getting FEM through, why do they want it so bad, why do they think it's so important?

Maybe they don't. Perhaps there isn't a grand conspiracy to force FEM down everyone's throats and to destroy all those that oppose FEM?

[Dumbdumb]

Whose money? More for the handful of universities that get accredited, more for the SOA as an organization because there will be more paying members? I'm not disagreeing, it likely is money, I just want to understand the whole situation.
I dunno in this instance. But I've seen interested parties make these organizations dance for their own financial purposes before so it's where I'd start.

No, I'm not interested in posting details. But it happens.

[JMO]

Maybe they don't. Perhaps there isn't a grand conspiracy to force FEM down everyone's throats and to destroy all those that oppose FEM?
This seems entirely plausible to me. Some people not really in touch with the wider membership decided this FEM thing was a good idea, and got together to reinforce each other's ideas. But once it got outside that (relatively) closed group, reality set in. It is possible that the furor against FEM is like hitting a gnat with a sledge hammer. But I, for one, wouldn't want to take a chance that a super-gnat could survive anything smaller.

[twig93]

He was voted in unanimously just last year. If any supposed 'non-professionalism' issues are present now, they were present then.

This is the part that I have trouble with. I haven't heard any accusations that he's done anything that the AAA wouldn't / couldn't have known about at the time they elected him.

[Actuary321]

This is the part that I have trouble with. I haven't heard any accusations that he's done anything that the AAA wouldn't / couldn't have known about at the time they elected him.Except all his posting on the AO since then.

[twig93]

:iatp:

What I'm still failing to grasp is WHY there is a group so dead set on getting FEM through, why do they want it so bad, why do they think it's so important?

A system with integrity can stand up to scrutiny. We seem to be witnessing the opposite here. If FEM were so great, they'd be able to communicate why and at least a plurality of members would probably support it.

I believe the (non-scientific) vote in the thread about supporting FEM or not had over 90% opposed. Tell us why it's so great and maybe we'll support it.

[dschobel]

A system with integrity can stand up to scrutiny. We seem to be witnessing the opposite here. If FEM were so great, they'd be able to communicate why and at least a plurality of members would probably support it.

I believe the (non-scientific) vote in the thread about supporting FEM or not had over 90% opposed. Tell us why it's so great and maybe we'll support it.

The poll is located here:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=174873

At the time of this post it stands at 115 opposed, 2 in favor. In terms of percentages, 98.29% opposed, 1.71% in favor.

[twig93]

Except all his posting on the AO since then.

Well he hadn't posted about his conviction or the Sanford affair or the Dan Anderson thing - supposedly proof of his alleged "damage to the actuarial profession" after his selection by the AAA board.

The only things he's posted since then that leadership seems to have a problem with are related to FEM. So it would seem that those who suggested that this was really about FEM (and not the content of the Hartman letter) were right all along. That was kind of my point. Bruce's opposition to FEM is not a valid reason for removing him... whether the removal followed proper procedure or not.

The board might have the legal right to remove him for reasons that I don't consider valid, and that's where the issue of whether their removal was legal or not come in to play. I had been thinking that their removal was illegal, but upon reading the judge's decision yesterday, it sounds like it is more likely that it was legal.

But regardless of the legality of their removal... it feels extremely unethical to me. I say that because it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that it was all about FEM and all the other stuff is a pathetic attempt to distract us from their real motivation.

[Actuary321]

Yeah, seems non of the things that the noticed indicated would be considered were the reason for BS getting the boot. This was one of his complaints, that he was ambushed, a coup d'état.

[asdfasdf]

Maybe they don't. Perhaps there isn't a grand conspiracy to force FEM down everyone's throats and to destroy all those that oppose FEM?

Cecil was just nominated to be next IAA president by his good friend, if he's trying not to look like some politician drunk on his own self righteousness he's not trying very hard.

The poll is located here:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=174873

At the time of this post it stands at 115 opposed, 2 in favor. In terms of percentages, 98.29% opposed, 1.71% in favor.

:lol: Can someone please pass through on to Cecil

[Guilty Bystander]

Cecil was just nominated to be next IAA president by his good friend, if he's trying not to look like some politician drunk on his own self righteousness he's not trying very hard.



:lol: Can someone please pass through on to Cecil

asdfasdf (read a la the soup nazi): No presidency of the AAA for you!

[Brad Gile]

asdfasdf (read a la the soup nazi): No presidency of the AAA for you!

I suspect that a lot of us are on the AAA/FEM shit list. :smile:

[asdfasdf]

I suspect that a lot of us are on the AAA/FEM shit list. :smile:

I like to think in reality that works both ways, the new actuarial body me and IP will be forming is starting to look mighty appealing.

[Shaft]

This seems entirely plausible to me. Some people not really in touch with the wider membership decided this FEM thing was a good idea, and got together to reinforce each other's ideas. But once it got outside that (relatively) closed group, reality set in. It is possible that the furor against FEM is like hitting a gnat with a sledge hammer. But I, for one, wouldn't want to take a chance that a super-gnat could survive anything smaller.
I agree with this particualrly if you are new on to a Board or committee. But also there are two other possibilities that concern me: firstly the desire to have 'achieved' something while in office - to look back and say "FEM happened under me", so there are ego issues and secondly the fact that individuals pushing the proposal have direct benefit to be gained from it, and nothing is more direct than financial interest. That alone should have excluded them in Board/committee discussions on the matter as an obvious conflict of interest. Oh and a thrird point - two of the prominent pushers are indivuals who hold CERA and FSA designations without having ever passed an SOA exam. That does not chime with me.

But at least they are being consistent: "we got FSA and CERA without sitting a single SOA exam, so we would like to offer you a way out from some of the exams too!"

[Arthur Kade]

Looking on the bright side (for Bruce):

Once a jury learns of this, it won't probably matter if he doesn't get to be AAA President because they'll give him more money than he'll know what to do with in 3 lifetimes.

[The Mad Hatter]

My understanding is that ALL of the special directors (which consist of the pres and pres-elec of the other 4 US-based actuarial organizations) voted to remove Bruce. So when talking about the SOA's role in this mess, let's not forget that the CAS, CCA and ASPA were a part of the action as well.

It's a very large cabal of evil pro FEM'ers. They're everywhere man.

[Angstrom]

IAA <> AAA

Correct?

[Harry]

IAA <> AAA

Correct?
Not yet, but ...

[Listeria]

I actually thought Cecil Bykerk was already a past IAA president.

[Harry]

I actually thought Cecil Bykerk was already a past IAA president.
I thought that was Hartman?

[Listeria]

I get more and more mixed up as this goes on.

[remilard]

Cecil was on an IAA committee which proposed a global education standard which deemphasizes exams.

Hartman is a past president of the IAA.

Cecil will be president of the IAA while he is on the boards of the AAA and SOA. Who wants to wait and see how that works out for us?

If you are an FSA or FCAS or MAAA and you need to order new business cards in the next couple of years, get the minimum order.

[Mitch Serota]

So let me make sure I understand the sequence of events:

1) Hartmann wants Schobel removed as AAA President-Elect


:exams:
How about item zero:
Sanford sues SOA and a specific individual for defamation of character and wins $2M. Or is that not relevant?

[The Mad Hatter]

How about item zero:
Sanford sues SOA and a specific individual for defamation of character and wins $2M. Or is that not relevant?

Nope, nothing that make Bruce look bad counts (and stating factual details is disgusting while making up wild conspiracy theories about people is not). Mentioning it only means you don't like Bruce and/or part of the FEM evil cabal (beginning to wonder now what her connection to IAA is).

[remilard]

How about item zero:
Sanford sues SOA and a specific individual for defamation of character and wins $2M. Or is that not relevant?

It was not the reason given for moving and seconding to remove Schobel as AAA PE.

Who gets removed when the AAA has to pay Schobel some bucks?

I vote for Cecil.

[Arden Bensenhaver]

What a bunch of disgusting nasty anti-social little people.

Keep up the good work Bruce and PhilDe

[Mitch Serota]

[QUOTE=Teddy KGB;3908486]Dear AO,

In support of their motion, Bykerk and McLaughlin raised a host of new issues beyond those referenced in the letter from the 19 past presidents.

http://www.bakosenterprises.com/Academy/De12-2%20Third%20Dec%20BS%209-10-09.pdf

Hey Remi--It was already on the table as the primary reason. Bruce's prompt resignation from President-elect of AAA before Aug 5 and before the Hartmann letter would have been right and proper and would have enhanced his reputation immeasurably.

[SirVLCIV]

How about item zero:
Sanford sues SOA and a specific individual for defamation of character and wins $2M. Or is that not relevant?

Please note, for the umpteenth time, Sanford did not win a lawsuit. She won an award judgment from an arbitration panel.

Given no one who was not involved in the arbitration hearing knows anything remotely approaching the full details of the arbitration hearing, it is completely ridiculous to jump to conclusions based on the small snapshot that is the award judgment.

Are you people actuaries? Do you perform your jobs with such a casual disregard for the necessity of complete (as complete as possible) information?

This is my main beef with this whole situation.

[Lucy]

Maybe they don't. Perhaps there isn't a grand conspiracy to force FEM down everyone's throats and to destroy all those that oppose FEM?Yeah, I suspect that's the case.

Well he hadn't posted about his conviction or the Sanford affair or the Dan Anderson thing - supposedly proof of his alleged "damage to the actuarial profession" after his selection by the AAA board.

The only things he's posted since then that leadership seems to have a problem with are related to FEM. So it would seem that those who suggested that this was really about FEM (and not the content of the Hartman letter) were right all along. That was kind of my point. Bruce's opposition to FEM is not a valid reason for removing him... whether the removal followed proper procedure or not.

The board might have the legal right to remove him for reasons that I don't consider valid, and that's where the issue of whether their removal was legal or not come in to play. I had been thinking that their removal was illegal, but upon reading the judge's decision yesterday, it sounds like it is more likely that it was legal.

But regardless of the legality of their removal... it feels extremely unethical to me. I say that because it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that it was all about FEM and all the other stuff is a pathetic attempt to distract us from their real motivation.My guess is personal reasons, dressed up in other clothes. Bruce pissed people off in his reaction to FEM, or in some other way, and a group of them convinced themselves they had to get rid of him, and convinced enough others that it happened. My guess is (and has been that) they did it legally, but it does sound sort of slimy.

[Boink]

Please note, for the umpteenth time, Sanford did not win a lawsuit. She won an award judgment from an arbitration panel.

Given no one who was not involved in the arbitration hearing knows anything remotely approaching the full details of the arbitration hearing, it is completely ridiculous to jump to conclusions based on the small snapshot that is the award judgment.

Are you people actuaries? Do you perform your jobs with such a casual disregard for the necessity of complete (as complete as possible) information?

This is my main beef with this whole situation.


Wouldn't it be nice if you were this offended by the sliming of countless other actuaries ? Why is it that you only rush in when it's speculation about Bruce ?

[Maphisto's Sidekick]

My guess is personal reasons, dressed up in other clothes. Bruce pissed people off in his reaction to FEM, or in some other way, and a group of them convinced themselves they had to get rid of him, and convinced enough others that it happened. My guess is (and has been that) they did it legally, but it does sound sort of slimy.

:iatp:

I could understand the Board becoming convinced that a certain style, exhibited through certain disagreements over FEM, would lead someone to be viewed as an inappropriate/undesirable leader of the Academy...and that a late realization of that would goad the Board into taking rather extreme action.

A conspiracy over FEM is an entertaining story. But there is a simpler explanation.

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

[Mitch Serota]

Please note, for the umpteenth time, Sanford did not win a lawsuit. She won an award judgment from an arbitration panel.

Given no one who was not involved in the arbitration hearing knows anything remotely approaching the full details of the arbitration hearing, it is completely ridiculous to jump to conclusions based on the small snapshot that is the award judgment.

Are you people actuaries? Do you perform your jobs with such a casual disregard for the necessity of complete (as complete as possible) information?

This is my main beef with this whole situation.

OK, Sanford won an award judgment for $2M. Does that make you feel better? It was still awarded on a complaint (is that word ok?) of defamation by a specific individual. And if $2M is a small snapshot to you, you have better things to do than respond to this blog.

[remilard]

OK, Sanford won an award judgment for $2M. Does that make you feel better? It was still awarded on a complaint (is that word ok?) of defamation by a specific individual. And if $2M is a small snapshot to you, you have better things to do than respond to this blog.

Mitch, who do you think should go when the AAA has to pay a judgement to Schobel?

[Mitch Serota]

Mitch, who do you think should go when the AAA has to pay a judgment to Schobel?
Assuming he actually receives monetary compensation for a volunteer position? After reading the judge's ruling, with his constant references to tears, I can't help thinking that he could not believe the situation with which he was presented.

Well, Parks will be gone Oct 28 in any circumstance. I will have to retreat from a direct answer to your question because I don't precisely know who in particular caused the damage that such judgment would be offsetting.
I defer to Lucy and Maphisto, if they want to jump in, because they see the big picture and don't know the whole story, but are valiantly trying to piece the puzzle together (are we having fun yet?).

On a related matter to the fault question, however, I have always wondered why there was never a member-driven election for AAA officers. Now I think real elections have become imperative. We can keep the 8 ex-officio guys, but without elections for the other directors and officers, there is no real accountability.

[campbell]

I'm not fond of the ex-officio seats, frankly.

[SirVLCIV]

OK, Sanford won an award judgment for $2M. Does that make you feel better? It was still awarded on a complaint (is that word ok?) of defamation by a specific individual. And if $2M is a small snapshot to you, you have better things to do than respond to this blog.

I don't believe you understood my complaint (and you definitely didn't understand my meaning of "snapshot").

We don't know the full story. An arbitration panel is not a court of law. In fact, arbitrators do not have to follow the law.

In a court, one party must prove harm. In an arbitration panel, it may be sufficient to award damages if the defendant can not prove the absence of harm.

[SirVLCIV]

Wouldn't it be nice if you were this offended by the sliming of countless other actuaries ? Why is it that you only rush in when it's speculation about Bruce ?

I wasn't aware of anything going on up in this section of the board until PhildeAssociate posted a bunch of threads in Non-Actuarial about FEM.

Who else should I be defending from speculation, jumping to conclusions, etc.?

[frank_exams]

Yep, now I read it. He said "disgusting." And, now as my punishment, yes I'd like your editorial opinion.

Page 4 and page 11. Shame about the TRO decision...now no :popcorn:.

[Boink]

I wasn't aware of anything going on up in this section of the board until PhildeAssociate posted a bunch of threads in Non-Actuarial about FEM.

Who else should I be defending from speculation, jumping to conclusions, etc.?


Try reading this very thread for all kinds of speculation about motives of some of the parties involved, and you'll find at least as much about them as you jumped in to complain about when Bruce was referred to (not even by name).

In fact, very little of the "discussion" of FEM has been about the merits (or non-merits), if people here were being honest. It's mostly been about accusations flying left and right, with very few knowing what actually went on.

Ironically, the people who did know some of the inside info, like American Psycho, were mocked and had posts taken down while other people have spent hours and days concocting elaborate conspiracy theories. Yes, I'm sure Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin are sitting back and watching the money roll in, that's where all of this was spawned. 1999, remember that, it was hatched ! :rofl:

[DudeMan]

Page 4 and page 11. Shame about the TRO decision...now no :popcorn:.

yeah it sucks. imo the judge woud have liked to give Bruce the TRO, but wasn't willing to set a precedent in order to do it. I think the judge would have given the TRO if Bruce & attorney were able to cite a similar past judgement. I also don't think the judge thought the removal process was legal, but rather couldn't find any decisive evidence that it was illegal.

[DudeMan]

Yes, I'm sure Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin are sitting back and watching the money roll in, that's where all of this was spawned. 1999, remember that, it was hatched ! :rofl:

If money is not the motivation (I would like to believe this is true but :shrug:) then I would like to see some kind of communication stating exactly why FEM is a good solution for our profession.

[Brad Gile]

In fact, very little of the "discussion" of FEM has been about the merits (or non-merits), if people here were being honest. It's mostly been about accusations flying left and right, with very few knowing what actually went on.

:rofl:

You really have not paid attention to the FEM letters, have you? I haven't seen any throwing accusations. Nice try, no cigar. :lol:

[Boink]

You'll notice my post reads "very little" ...

[Brad Gile]

yeah it sucks. imo the judge woud have liked to give Bruce the TRO, but wasn't willing to set a precedent in order to do it. I think the judge would have given the TRO if Bruce & attorney were able to cite a similar past judgement. I also don't think the judge thought the removal process was legal, but rather couldn't find any decisive evidence that it was illegal.

I agree with this.

[Brad Gile]

You'll notice my post reads "very little" ...

My judgment stands. No cigar!

[SirVLCIV]

Try reading this very thread for all kinds of speculation about motives of some of the parties involved, and you'll find at least as much about them as you jumped in to complain about when Bruce was referred to (not even by name).

In fact, very little of the "discussion" of FEM has been about the merits (or non-merits), if people here were being honest. It's mostly been about accusations flying left and right, with very few knowing what actually went on.

Ironically, the people who did know some of the inside info, like American Psycho, were mocked and had posts taken down while other people have spent hours and days concocting elaborate conspiracy theories. Yes, I'm sure Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin are sitting back and watching the money roll in, that's where all of this was spawned. 1999, remember that, it was hatched ! :rofl:

Now that you're done acting like an ass, feel free to link to me supplying conspiracy theories.

FEM has no merits, IMO. In order to have any merits, three (some multi-part) questions would have to be answered.

1) What is the problem to be solved?
2) What other alternatives could there be to solve this problem? Is this the best option?
3) Can this solution be implemented at a reasonable cost? What unforeseen negative side effects could this solution create?

#1 has been alluded to, but not fully stated. #2 doesn't even appear to have been attempted. #3 looks highly doubtful to me, and the side effects are not reasoanbly accepted, 'FAQ' notwithstanding.

[remilard]

Now that you're done acting like an ass, feel free to link to me supplying conspiracy theories.

FEM has no merits, IMO. In order to have any merits, three (some multi-part) questions would have to be answered.

1) What is the problem to be solved?
2) What other alternatives could there be to solve this problem? Is this the best option?
3) Can this solution be implemented at a reasonable cost? What unforeseen negative side effects could this solution create?

#1 has been alluded to, but not fully stated. #2 doesn't even appear to have been attempted. #3 looks highly doubtful to me, and the side effects are not reasoanbly accepted, 'FAQ' notwithstanding.

Dear SirVLCIV,

The problem is that in order to facilitate a smooth transition of power from the SOA/CAS/AAA to the IAA, we need to begin aligning our processes with those of the IAA.

Creating a small group of people who, in revolving door fashion, have leadership roles in the US groups and the IAA that overlap or bookend each other is another part of the solution. Look for Schobel's spot at the AAA to be filled by an IAAer (past, present or near future).

Regards,

remilard

[_BullDog_]

Now that you're done acting like an ass, feel free to link to me supplying conspiracy theories.

FEM has no merits, IMO. In order to have any merits, three (some multi-part) questions would have to be answered.

1) What is the problem to be solved?
2) What other alternatives could there be to solve this problem? Is this the best option?
3) Can this solution be implemented at a reasonable cost? What unforeseen negative side effects could this solution create?

#1 has been alluded to, but not fully stated. #2 doesn't even appear to have been attempted. #3 looks highly doubtful to me, and the side effects are not reasoanbly accepted, 'FAQ' notwithstanding.
you assume the people trying to solve a problem care whether or not there is a problem to be solved. They have a solution and are going to do whatever they can to implement the solution.

[tommie frazier]

Yes, I did know about the changes.

Yes, I did voice my concerns. I had more than a few - especially on the "you must have credit for the fellowship-level Advanced Reserving, Ratemaking and ERM exam to sign statements" tag that got lobbed out late. [Which still begs the question: why not just make it an associate-level exam instead of setting up the situation where there will be ACAS's that can't sign necessary statements?]
I'd be surprised if anyone gave my comments so much as lip service, seeing as how nothing changed. I expect it got a :rolleyes: and then lobbed into the trash can.

the committee that put the redesign together did so with the intention that the practice rights of the ACAS in the new system would be the same as an ACAS in the prior/existing system. however, the AAA controls practice rights, and they thought otherwise. I, for one, felt misled (at least) by how that went down. I thought that if the CAS board voted on it as enough to render an opinion, then that meant something. the AAA PC practice council felt otherwise. why it went public without having that confirmed is beyond me. in the end, a lot of people who thought they were doing something good got garbage handed to them.

redesign was approved in March/Feb of 2008. Webinar given in late 2008. AAA opinion on ACAS signing was after that.

[tommie frazier]

yeah it sucks. imo the judge woud have liked to give Bruce the TRO, but wasn't willing to set a precedent in order to do it. I think the judge would have given the TRO if Bruce & attorney were able to cite a similar past judgement. I also don't think the judge thought the removal process was legal, but rather couldn't find any decisive evidence that it was illegal.

the judge was clearly not impressed with the AAA board, its actions, or seemingly its attorneys. i think the "notice" issue disheartened him, but that alone doesn't make it illegal. (he kept referring to "John". I found that amusing.)

[silverfox]

I'm happy that you don't think much of the "bad language" in my email to Dan Anderson (and not to all the actuaries in Canada, as some have alleged).

Are you kidding? It's very unprofessional, and it's hard for me to understand how you don't see it that way too. I work at a small company and we all swear a lot. I sit by the claims adjusters for godsake. It's one thing to use it as an expletive and it's another to use it as a metaphor of feces leaking out of someone's mouth.

[silverfox]

Whenever I do my California workers comp rate study, the first thing I hear from the underwriters is, Bullshit! If they said, I can't listen to the shit dribbling out of your mouth, I might take offense to it.

[silverfox]

Not to mention the number of times I've heard my CFO yell, We are not ****ing paying that shit, damnit!

[Dumbdumb]

Are you kidding? It's very unprofessional, and it's hard for me to understand how you don't see it that way too. I work at a small company and we all swear a lot. I sit by the claims adjusters for godsake. It's one thing to use it as an expletive and it's another to use it as a metaphor of feces leaking out of someone's mouth.
You are correct. What you're not factoring in is that it was an entirely appropriate response to Dan Anderson's tirade at the time.

[silverfox]

You are correct. What you're not factoring in is that it was an entirely appropriate response to Dan Anderson's tirade at the time.

There is a professional response to any tirade. Think of Joe Wilson yelling at Obama, "We can't listen to the shit dribbling from your lips!" He used a more professional, "You lie!"

[Irish Blues]

A rhetorical question for some here to consider:

I keep reading about how Bruce is/was responsible for the SOA paying $2 million in an arbitration award, and how that's the reason [among others] he is/was unfit to be P-E of the AAA. However, I also keep reading about how Sanford was fired by a unanimous vote of the SOA board. Thus, it reads to me that the firing of Sanford wasn't orchestrated by one person - unless Bruce is really Chancellor Palpatine and used the Jedi mind trick to control the entire board to do his bidding.

So ... why aren't we talking about getting rid of everyone on the SOA board that voted to remove Sanford as well? Why are we simply focused on Schobel's act in the incident and ignoring the actions of everyone else that was involved? If the Sanford affair was so egregious that Schobel can't serve as an officer, then why should everyone involved in the firing of Sanford and the resulting $2 million payout get let off the hook? Are those people that voted to fire her similarly unfit to hold positions in the SOA/AAA/IAA/DDT/BBQ/WTF/OMG?

Something for people to consider.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Why are we simply focused on Schobel's act in the incident and ignoring the actions of everyone else that was involved?

All I know about this is what I have read here, but I think the answer to your question is: "Were others named or ordered to contribute?"

[honeyweis]

A rhetorical question for some here to consider:

I keep reading about how Bruce is/was responsible for the SOA paying $2 million in an arbitration award, and how that's the reason [among others] he is/was unfit to be P-E of the AAA. However, I also keep reading about how Sanford was fired by a unanimous vote of the SOA board. Thus, it reads to me that the firing of Sanford wasn't orchestrated by one person - unless Bruce is really Chancellor Palpatine and used the Jedi mind trick to control the entire board to do his bidding.

So ... why aren't we talking about getting rid of everyone on the SOA board that voted to remove Sanford as well? Why are we simply focused on Schobel's act in the incident and ignoring the actions of everyone else that was involved? If the Sanford affair was so egregious that Schobel can't serve as an officer, then why should everyone involved in the firing of Sanford and the resulting $2 million payout get let off the hook? Are those people that voted to fire her similarly unfit to hold positions in the SOA/AAA/IAA/DDT/BBQ/WTF/OMG?

Something for people to consider.

Maybe it has nothing to do with Sanford. Maybe Sanford and the expunged felony are just a smoke screen. Hmmm....wonder what might be hiding behind that smoke screen?

[jmelbye]

Nope, nothing that make Bruce look bad counts (and stating factual details is disgusting while making up wild conspiracy theories about people is not). Mentioning it only means you don't like Bruce and/or part of the FEM evil cabal (beginning to wonder now what her connection to IAA is).

For those who are critical of Bruce Schobel, can you acknowledge that he has built up a tremendous amount of goodwill within the profession? That is why so many here are quick to offer their support for him. He has done much to engage members of the profession and in my opinion that speaks volumes about his leadership ability. If the Academy doesn't want a President who is a straight talker who will speak his mind and will go to bat for members of the organization, then it is a loss for us all.

For full disclosure, I met/encountered Bruce twice - as a college student when he came to speak to our actuarial science students, and another time when he dropped in as a guest to a company outing when I was an intern. I also was getting through the preliminary exams while Bruce was working hard to demystify the exam process, pass marks, etc. (Thank you for that, by the way.)

[The Mad Hatter]

Bruce has done a lot for the profession; no one denies that.

[gadzookz]

Are you kidding? It's very unprofessional, and it's hard for me to understand how you don't see it that way too.It's clearly unprofessional. The current and past U.S. President each had an off-the-record comment about an individual accidentally overheard/recorded. The previous Pres referenced a reporter as a major league a-hole. The current Pres called Kanye West a jack-a. Each time, it was considered inappropriate, and reconciliatory comments had to be made. In neither case did either Pres directly address the individual with such language.

[SirVLCIV]

It's clearly unprofessional. The current and past U.S. President each had an off-the-record comment about an individual accidentally overheard/recorded. The previous Pres referenced a reporter as a major league a-hole. The current Pres called Kanye West a jack-a. Each time, it was considered inappropriate, and reconciliatory comments had to be made. In neither case did either Pres directly address the individual with such language.

And a lot of words of faux outrage were written about the events.

I forgot, we're supposed to pretend that our leaders are perfect.

[silverfox]

It's clearly unprofessional. The current and past U.S. President each had an off-the-record comment about an individual accidentally overheard/recorded. The previous Pres referenced a reporter as a major league a-hole. The current Pres called Kanye West a jack-a. Each time, it was considered inappropriate, and reconciliatory comments had to be made. In neither case did either Pres directly address the individual with such language.

Schobel doesn't acknowledge it as being unprofessional though. He thinks we're squeamish.

[Malik Shabazz]

I'm not fond of the ex-officio seats, frankly.
Considering that the Academy is the umbrella organization that's supposed to represent the entire profession, it makes sense to have each of the other actuarial societies represented on its Board.

[ishamael]

Considering that the Academy is the umbrella organization that's supposed to represent the entire profession, it makes sense to have each of the other actuarial societies represented on its Board.

I don't work in the US, but I do wonder whether the US really needs so many actuarial societies.

If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in the UK, I go to the IOA; If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in Australia, I go to the IOAA; If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in Singapore, I go to the Singapore Actuarial Society; If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in the US, I go to... er....

[jmelbye]

It's clearly unprofessional. The current and past U.S. President each had an off-the-record comment about an individual accidentally overheard/recorded. The previous Pres referenced a reporter as a major league a-hole. The current Pres called Kanye West a jack-a. Each time, it was considered inappropriate, and reconciliatory comments had to be made. In neither case did either Pres directly address the individual with such language.

Funny, I was just thinking of this as well. I'll take the President who calls West a jack-a on-the-record every time.

[Malik Shabazz]

I don't work in the US, but I do wonder whether the US really needs so many actuarial societies.

If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in the UK, I go to the IOA; If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in Australia, I go to the IOAA; If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in Singapore, I go to the Singapore Actuarial Society; If I want to know more about the actuarial profession in the US, I go to... er....
You'll get no argument from me. I've written several times about the need to reduce the number of US actuarial organizations.

[Wag, the Dog]

For those who are critical of Bruce Schobel, can you acknowledge that he has built up a tremendous amount of goodwill within the profession? That is why so many here are quick to offer their support for him. He has done much to engage members of the profession and in my opinion that speaks volumes about his leadership ability. If the Academy doesn't want a President who is a straight talker who will speak his mind and will go to bat for members of the organization, then it is a loss for us all.I agree that he has built up (by being a good ombudsman, by reaching out) lots of goodwill with the AO and with young actuaries generally. He certainly did those kinds of things for me.

But he has much less goodwill with established actuaries (I like to think that I am one now). Those who know him very well often describe him as manipulative. Jeremy Gold says that he doesn't lie but misleads while telling the truth. I know more than a few actuaries who are of that same opinion.

Some call him a bully and it seems reasonably likely that a number of the people he bullied have gotten together to redress their grievances. If this is correct, it shouldn't be a surprise, because bullies eventually find that others will stand up to them.

[campbell]

Re: ex-officio seats

Considering the SOA and CAS are international, not solely U.S., organizations, in what respect does it make sense for their officers to be sitting on the AAA board ex-officio?

It makes more sense for AAA officers to be sitting on the SOA board, ex-officio.

[Wag, the Dog]

Nope, nothing that make Bruce look bad counts (and stating factual details is disgusting while making up wild conspiracy theories about people is not). Mentioning it only means you don't like Bruce and/or part of the FEM evil cabal (beginning to wonder now what her connection to IAA is).Mention the wrong truth and :hfbb:

[Wag, the Dog]

Maybe they don't. Perhaps there isn't a grand conspiracy to force FEM down everyone's throats and to destroy all those that oppose FEM?Ssssshh. If you say there isn't a grand conspiracy, people here won't like you.

[Wag, the Dog]

This seems entirely plausible to me. Some people not really in touch with the wider membership decided this FEM thing was a good idea, and got together to reinforce each other's ideas. But once it got outside that (relatively) closed group, reality set in. It is possible that the furor against FEM is like hitting a gnat with a sledge hammer. But I, for one, wouldn't want to take a chance that a super-gnat could survive anything smaller.:iatp:
but I am confident that the gnat is dead and the AO can take some credit for that. Unfortunatelty that sledge hammer has been looking for victims with real names for too long now.

[Wag, the Dog]

This is the part that I have trouble with. I haven't heard any accusations that he's done anything that the AAA wouldn't / couldn't have known about at the time they elected him.Woulda/coulda for sure. But in fact the great majority of AAA board members had little or no knowledge of anything to do with Sarah Sanford. And the few who did (note that when the vote was taken the two SOA special directors were Cecil Bykerk and .. er. what was that guy's name? Oh yeah, not Mike McLaughlin. It was ... a ... a .. Bruce Schobel voting for himself!) did not have in depth knowledge. And the AAA "elections" are almost always unanimous any way. It is a go along to get along joint.

[Wag, the Dog]

Except all his posting on the AO since then.And there is that ...

[Wag, the Dog]

Well he hadn't posted about his conviction or the Sanford affair or the Dan Anderson thing - supposedly proof of his alleged "damage to the actuarial profession" after his selection by the AAA board.You seem to be ignoring simple logical principles here. No one said that his removal was based in any large way on his posting. That may have been a big deal to some on the board but the record is clear. The root cause (and Judge Sullivan has more info than we) is the reaction of the 19 Ex-Presidents to the arbitration document.

Will somebody please post the damn thing already?

[Wag, the Dog]

You'll get no argument from me. I've written several times about the need to reduce the number of US actuarial organizations.entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

[campbell]

It already multiplied beyond necessity.

Did Occam have anything to say about pruning what already exists?

[asdfasdf]

Will somebody please post the damn thing already?

The same "damn thing" that the JUDGE (not arbitrator, judge) was disgusted at being shared? You go ahead and do that.

Is Bruce a bully? I dont' know him IRL so can't comment.

Were Hartmann and Cecil working together to remove him? YES.

Were they completely public about the fact that they worked together to remove him? NO.

Do I trust either of them at this point? NO.

It's not about Bruce anymore, it's about as the NY Times article so accurately put it some cabal of actuaries lording over the rest of us. Given that, I no longer think it's unreasonable to think that FEM was significantly involved in all this.

[Jeremy Gold]

It already multiplied beyond necessity.

Did Occam have anything to say about pruning what already exists?I think the idea was to shave the unnecessary elements, hence the razor.

I am guessing that Wag thinks there are too many US actuarial orgs. Duh.

[remilard]

You seem to be ignoring simple logical principles here. No one said that his removal was based in any large way on his posting. That may have been a big deal to some on the board but the record is clear. The root cause (and Judge Sullivan has more info than we) is the reaction of the 19 Ex-Presidents to the arbitration document.

Will somebody please post the damn thing already?

1. You disgust Judge Sullivan.
2. Your team have smugly predicted that every new revelation would vindicated Hartman, Anker, Bykerk et al when in reality the opposite has happened. Given how poorly you and American Psycho (what is it with guys named after movies?) have predicted the membership would react and given that the arbitration document is the last bomb to be dropped that could possibly favor your position, are you sure you are right about how people will react to it?

The fact of the matter is that so many people are now convinced that Hartman, Anker, Bykerk et all acted toward some goal not related to the arbitration document, and that the document was just a pretext, all you can possibly hope for is that we will despise Schobel for what is in that document along with Hartman, Anker, Bykerk et al for what they have done.

[SirVLCIV]

How difficult is it to learn how to multiquote?

There are three buttons on the bottom left of a post. The first is 'Quote'. The second has quote marks and a plus sign. The third has a letter and a quill.

Click on the second of the three, on each post to which you would like to respond. Once you are on the last post to which you would like to respond, click the 'Quote' button. Ta da, you have one post, to which you can reply to each individual post with absolutely nothing of substance.

[Arden Bensenhaver]

1. You disgust Judge Sullivan.
2. Your team have smugly predicted that every new revelation would vindicated Hartman, Anker, Bykerk et al when in reality the opposite has happened. Given how poorly you and American Psycho (what is it with guys named after movies?) have predicted the membership would react and given that the arbitration document is the last bomb to be dropped that could possibly favor your position, are you sure you are right about how people will react to it?

The fact of the matter is that so many people are now convinced that Hartman, Anker, Bykerk et all acted toward some goal not related to the arbitration document, and that the document was just a pretext, all you can possibly hope for is that we will despise Schobel for what is in that document along with Hartman, Anker, Bykerk et al for what they have done.

:iatp:

[Arden Bensenhaver]

Several posters who I assume are connected to this in real life have convinced themselves that Bruce is "bad" and have justified his removal in their heads.

Give it up gentlemen

[SirVLCIV]

Several posters who I assume are connected to this in real life have convinced themselves that Bruce is "bad" and have justified his removal in their heads.

Give it up gentlemen

+100.

And they've convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees has been 'manipulated' by Bruce. When those of us who have decided to defend the individual against the group have done so upon a review of the available evidence.

Instead of supplying contradictory evidence, they supply undefended assertions, and are surprised when those attempts sway none.

[Basso]

I don't think Bruce is a saint, but I don't think anything he's done rises to the occasion of needing to have him removed. The old conviction is moot IMO, and the Sandford thing is relevant, but also seems to have a lot of unknown elements, so its difficult to think that it was too damning since he's still on the SOA board. That only leaves personality/policy disagreements as motivation from my view. The collaboration to remove someone over an apparent personality/policy decision smacks of totalitarianism which is why I'm a little peeved at the current state, and kind of hope that these members get theirs when it comes back around. I don't think that's really a professional stance to take, but at this point I don't really care.

[Irish Blues]

Maybe it has nothing to do with Sanford. Maybe Sanford and the expunged felony are just a smoke screen. Hmmm....wonder what might be hiding behind that smoke screen?
But ... I keep reading that it's not about the expunged felony and that it's all about Schobel's conduct wrt the Sanford affair and his coarse statements wrt others that he has disagreed with in the past. The Anderson affair and others, surely everyone that voted unanimously for him to be P-E knew about before the vote ... right? I mean, that only happened 12-18 months [or more] before the election, was that stuff buried under Grant's Tomb and only discovered when the arbitration ruling was handed down? Did no one know about this stuff prior to the original election?

As someone said earlier: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And keep in mind, (A) I don't have an opinion on this, and (B) frankly I'm disgusted at the whole episode and think more than a few people should be permanently barred from ever holding a position in the AAA and all other associated actuarial groups when all is said and done ... but there's just more than a few pieces missing in the puzzle.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

My take on this whole thing is that the SOA and the actuarial organizations generally have built up a lot of ill will and distrust among the membership over the years, by being consistently arrogant, unresponsive and secretive. By contrast, Bruce Schobel has been open and willing to engage the membership. As a result of this, many are predisposed to favor BS in this dispute, and to assume the worst of the actuarial organizations.

I myself share the same attitude about these organizations, but I think it's wise to keep the issues separate and judgments dispassionate.

One possible positive outcome of this whole debacle is if the actuarial honchos take note of the public attitude about them and how it can cause loss of support in this type of situation, and try to modify their attitudes in the future.I keep reading about how Bruce is/was responsible for the SOA paying $2 million in an arbitration award, and how that's the reason [among others] he is/was unfit to be P-E of the AAA. However, I also keep reading about how Sanford was fired by a unanimous vote of the SOA board. Thus, it reads to me that the firing of Sanford wasn't orchestrated by one person - unless Bruce is really Chancellor Palpatine and used the Jedi mind trick to control the entire board to do his bidding.

So ... why aren't we talking about getting rid of everyone on the SOA board that voted to remove Sanford as well? Why are we simply focused on Schobel's act in the incident and ignoring the actions of everyone else that was involved? If the Sanford affair was so egregious that Schobel can't serve as an officer, then why should everyone involved in the firing of Sanford and the resulting $2 million payout get let off the hook? Are those people that voted to fire her similarly unfit to hold positions in the SOA/AAA/IAA/DDT/BBQ/WTF/OMG?I believe - per public accounts of the dispute - that the issues in the Sanford case went beyond the mere fact of her firing, and included what was found to be defamation by Bruce, including his claims that she had looted the SOA.

Going into speculative territory a bit, it's possible that some people also feel that Bruce's going over the line in the defamation and his making it a personal dispute generally also undermined the SOA defense of the firing itself, by making Sanford a more sympathetic figure in the case.

[In addition, it's also possible that some of the people who voted for her removal were relying in large part on the situation as presented to them by those who were more involved with the hands-on running of the SOA. These people might feel particularly annoyed to find out that they had been presented with a misleading picture that omitted personal aspects to the dispute.]

[_BullDog_]

You seem to be ignoring simple logical principles here. No one said that his removal was based in any large way on his posting. That may have been a big deal to some on the board but the record is clear. The root cause (and Judge Sullivan has more info than we) is the reaction of the 19 Ex-Presidents to the arbitration document.

Will somebody please post the damn thing already?
Why, it was a private arbitration that was suppose to be confidential. Posting might have the effect of further damaging Bruce, which I wouldn't care for, but more important than that is the information about Sanford that was suppose to be confidential that may damage her.


Disclaimer: I have no clue what is in the document but am totaly against releasing it and anyone who has leaked info about it should be disciplined by the ABCD in my opinion.

[remilard]

Why, it was a private arbitration that was suppose to be confidential. Posting might have the effect of further damaging Bruce, which I wouldn't care for, but more important than that is the information about Sanford that was suppose to be confidential that may damage her.


Disclaimer: I have no clue what is in the document but am totaly against releasing it and anyone who has leaked info about it should be disciplined by the ABCD in my opinion.

Anyone who thought that:

"There is this document which can be damaging to the profession and to prove it we will use this document to damage the profession"

was a good idea needs more than discipline.

[Irish Blues]

One possible positive outcome of this whole debacle is if the actuarial honchos take note of the public attitude about them and how it can cause loss of support in this type of situation, and try to modify their attitudes in the future.I believe - per public accounts of the dispute - that the issues in the Sanford case went beyond the mere fact of her firing, and included what was found to be defamation by Bruce, including his claims that she had looted the SOA.

Going into speculative territory a bit, it's possible that some people also feel that Bruce's going over the line in the defamation and his making it a personal dispute generally also undermined the SOA defense of the firing itself, by making Sanford a more sympathetic figure in the case.
OK, fine ... if Bruce's conduct was to the level of having defamed Sanford, then why hasn't the rest of the SOA board kicked him out for such conduct? And if he defamed Sanford, has anyone filed an official complaint with the ABCD?

[EaglesFan]

I agree that he has built up (by being a good ombudsman, by reaching out) lots of goodwill with the AO and with young actuaries generally. He certainly did those kinds of things for me.

But he has much less goodwill with established actuaries (I like to think that I am one now). Those who know him very well often describe him as manipulative.


Actually that has not been my experience at all. As a career-changer who has reached out to FSAs at many companies, those who knew Bruce couldn't say enough good things about him. I ultimately met Bruce, because one of his colleagues put me in touch with him after going on about how helpful and collegial he is and he was proven right. My opinion of Bruce is high not only because of my first-hand experience of him, but also because of the strong reviews he receives across-the-board from so many people whom I trust.

[Will Durant]

Re: ex-officio seats

Considering the SOA and CAS are international, not solely U.S., organizations, in what respect does it make sense for their officers to be sitting on the AAA board ex-officio?
One of the ASPPA special directors isn't even an actuary.

[Will Durant]

Some call him a bully and it seems reasonably likely that a number of the people he bullied have gotten together to redress their grievances. If this is correct, it shouldn't be a surprise, because bullies eventually find that others will stand up to them.
If this is correct, then it's clear evidence that the AAA board violated its fiduciary duties. They are supposed to be acting in the best interests of their membership, not indulging personal grievances.

[DudeMan]

They are supposed to be acting in the best interests of their membership.

speaking of this.....is there anyway the members can petition to overturn the non-disciplinary expulsion "removal"?

[FattyMcGee]

speaking of this.....is there anyway the members can petition to overturn the non-disciplinary expulsion "removal"?
I don't think so, it's an action of the board which is non-reviewable by the membership. We don't have checks and balances, which in practice neither check nor balance, we have a selected oligarchy. I use the term "selected" carefully, as they are not really "elected" in the general sense of the term.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK, fine ... if Bruce's conduct was to the level of having defamed Sanford, then why hasn't the rest of the SOA board kicked him out for such conduct?That's an even bigger question for those who allege it's about FEM, which as I understand it is more of a SOA issue than a AAA one. But I would venture some combination of the following guesses.

1. BS being on the board of an actuarial organization is not nearly as big a deal as him being president of one. Much higher profile and also more power and hands-on management. It's not logically inconsistent to believe that someone could make a fine board member - or not such a bad one as to require removal - but be a very bad president.

2.For legal reasons the SOA needed to stand with Bruce in the Sanford case, since they were codefendants and were liable for his actions to a degree. Having argued long and hard that they were pure as the driven snow it's difficult to suddenly turn around and say yeah actually we were jerks but it was all Bruce Schobel's fault. So even now they are still in the "we think we were right but accept the finality of the arbitration" mode, which would be considerably undercut if they turned around and bounced BS off the board for his conduct in the Sanford case.

3. It's very possible that BS does in fact have more support on the SOA board than he does on the AAA board, if only by virtue of his having been past president and probably more involved generally. My point was only that you can't view BS and the SOA board as one unit for purposes of the Sanford issue, and there may be some significant dissent about it.

And if he defamed Sanford, has anyone filed an official complaint with the ABCD?I believe so. ABCD procedings are referenced in various letters and emails leading up to the AAA board meeting. But it's not completely clear what the ABCD complaints referred to are.
If this is correct, then it's clear evidence that the AAA board violated its fiduciary duties. They are supposed to be acting in the best interests of their membership, not indulging personal grievances.You will find in life that it's very difficult for people to sort out their own personal issues from the best interests of others.

"It's not about the money/honor/power ... it's the principle!" Has a familiar ring to it, no?

[Actuary321]

Cecil was on an IAA committee which proposed a global education standard which deemphasizes exams.

Hartman is a past president of the IAA.

Cecil will be president of the IAA while he is on the boards of the AAA and SOA. Who wants to wait and see how that works out for us?

If you are an FSA or FCAS or MAAA and you need to order new business cards in the next couple of years, get the minimum order.Actually I believe that Cecil's term on the board of the AAA will terminate when his term as SOA pres terminates (this fall I believe). So he will be SOA immediate past pres (member of SOA board) and IAA pres-elect for a concurrent year, then SOA penultimate past pres (member of SOA board) and IAA pres for a concurrent year. But during those terms, unless he is elected to the board of the AAA, he will not be on the AAA Board.

Why, it was a private arbitration that was suppose to be confidential. Posting might have the effect of further damaging Bruce, which I wouldn't care for, but more important than that is the information about Sanford that was suppose to be confidential that may damage her.


Disclaimer: I have no clue what is in the document but am totaly against releasing it and anyone who has leaked info about it should be disciplined by the ABCD in my opinion.Actually some of the arbitration information was filed with the court in the Sanford v SOA/Schobel case. I don't know how much. That is ostensibly how Hartman got a hold of it (and the NYTimes). Again I don't know how much of it. I am not certain that Judge Sullivan is necessarily aware that in fact that information is technically in the public domain. Therefore, I wonder just what the ABCD would say about someone who publicized information that while in the public domain was virtually a private matter. I don't know that I would characterize it as a leak.

OK, fine ... if Bruce's conduct was to the level of having defamed Sanford, then why hasn't the rest of the SOA board kicked him out for such conduct? And if he defamed Sanford, has anyone filed an official complaint with the ABCD?And if that was so bad that it was the basis for Hartman, Anker, et al, to call for Bruce's resignation from the AAA, why did they not also call for his resignation for the SOA Board. And why if that was so important that the SOA pres and p-e motion and second for his removal from AAA p-e, was/is it not enough for those same leaders to have him removed from the SOA board which they lead? And please note that we know that Bykerk has asked for Bruce's resignation from the SOA board, but not for the Sanford incident but for his actions regarding FEM.

ETA: the immediately preceding post was made while I was making this post. I does a good job of answering my queries, expect for the last point. Phipps, you want to take a stab at the point of Bykerk asking Bruce to resign from the SOA board re. FEM, then leading the movement to oust Bruce from the AAA and citing FEM as a reason when that was not part of the letter that was the basis of the meeting/discussion/action of the AAA board?

If this is correct, then it's clear evidence that the AAA board violated its fiduciary duties. They are supposed to be acting in the best interests of their membership, not indulging personal grievances.

:iatp:

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

ETA: the immediately preceding post was made while I was making this post. I does a good job of answering my queries, expect for the last point. Phipps, you want to take a stab at the point of Bykerk asking Bruce to resign from the SOA board re. FEM, then leading the movement to oust Bruce from the AAA and citing FEM as a reason when that was not part of the letter that was the basis of the meeting/discussion/action of the AAA board?Difficult to know anything about Bykerk specifically. I was discussing the board as a whole, and was mostly speculating at that.

But again, others have made the point that there is a distinction between objection to mere opposition to the FEM proposal and objection to the manner in which this opposition manifests itself. I would guess that Bykerk - at least in his own mind - believes that his is the latter and not the former. And I would certainly think this is the issue he presented to the board of the AAA (which is likely not all that interested in FEM one way or the other).

And that's also the point that ties in to the Sanford case. Essentially the argument would be that "Bruce is a hothead who is not capable of dealing professionally with dissenting opinions and thus not suitable for a leadership role. Exhibit 1: the Sanford case. Exhibit 2: the manner in which he publically combated FEM".

[Actuary321]

Yeah, he is not a team player. He voted for FEM as an SOA board member and then publicly advocated against it. And from the sound of it, even if he had voted against EXPLORATION of the idea of FEM, what Cecil said seems to imply that Bruce would still be bound to not campaign against it because the Board had taken a particular position and he had a duty of loyalty to the board.

[Will Durant]

You will find in life that it's very difficult for people to sort out their own personal issues from the best interests of others.
True. Yet there should be some consequences for failing this miserably at it. The arguments against Bruce appear to be of the nature of

BS :swear: at me and that made me :cry: so I want the AAA to :judge:

[DudeMan]

Exhibit 2: the manner in which he publically combated FEM".

Which of the 2 bolded words was the bigger factor? That he went to the public with the FEM proposal, or that he combated it?

[Will Durant]

had a duty of loyalty to the board.
IANAL, but my understanding (perhaps our resident actutorney can provide more background) is that this is a rather strained interpretation of the "duty of loyalty" of board members under common law.

Duty of Loyalty — Directors are obligated to exercise an undivided and unselfish loyalty [B]to the organization they serve. Directors must exercise their obligations and powers in the best interests of the organization and its charitable mission, not in their own interests or in the interests of another person or entity (even if charitable in nature).

Another person presumably includes fellow board members.

[cubs1969]

That's an even bigger question for those who allege it's about FEM, which as I understand it is more of a SOA issue than a AAA one. But I would venture some combination of the following guesses.

1. BS being on the board of an actuarial organization is not nearly as big a deal as him being president of one. Much higher profile and also more power and hands-on management. It's not logically inconsistent to believe that someone could make a fine board member - or not such a bad one as to require removal - but be a very bad president.


If this is true (and I'm not disputing that) why isn't John Parks leadership being called into question? As soon as he saw what was going on, he could have found a way to adjorn the meeting and stop the train but it appears that he stood by and watched. We don't know how he voted but the president of the AAA deserves a lot of blame for getting us in the NYT and he's not getting any. We've been focused on the Hartman/Bykerk angle but John Parks had a duty to try to keep this mess from playing out like it did and he failed. Same for the other Board members that thought the meeting was just about suspension. Did anyone say "whoa, let's take a deep breath?"

It could be that as soon as Hartman sent the resign or else email to Bruce that there was no turning back but I'd like to think that cooler heads could have prevailed if they spoke up.

[_BullDog_]

Yeah, he is not a team player. He voted for FEM as an SOA board member and then publicly advocated against it. And from the sound of it, even if he had voted against EXPLORATION of the idea of FEM, what Cecil said seems to imply that Bruce would still be bound to not campaign against it because the Board had taken a particular position and he had a duty of loyalty to the board.
he voted to examine the issue, not to implement or promote FEM. As a board member I would hope he'd vote to explore issues that are relevant. FEM is relevant in that several other organization currently have something similar, but as he concluded many see it as damaging to the current system.

[_BullDog_]

Difficult to know anything about Bykerk specifically. I was discussing the board as a whole, and was mostly speculating at that.

But again, others have made the point that there is a distinction between objection to mere opposition to the FEM proposal and objection to the manner in which this opposition manifests itself. I would guess that Bykerk - at least in his own mind - believes that his is the latter and not the former. And I would certainly think this is the issue he presented to the board of the AAA (which is likely not all that interested in FEM one way or the other).

And that's also the point that ties in to the Sanford case. Essentially the argument would be that "Bruce is a hothead who is not capable of dealing professionally with dissenting opinions and thus not suitable for a leadership role. Exhibit 1: the Sanford case. Exhibit 2: the manner in which he publically combated FEM".
for that to be the case you would have to believe that Bruce's hot headeness, if that is the case, only manifested itself in the last 9 months and was wholly unknown for the prior 30 years which is quit hard to believe as he has been involved with many organizations and with many people over the last 30 years.

[Beach Bum]

I've never met Bruce so am in no position to form an opinion, but I can say that within this board he has been helpful to us students over the past few years that are the up and coming profession. And I appreciate that a lot.

With that said I do find it mind-boggling that some people I work with, on the SOA side (I'm an FCAS), have such strong negative opinions to the guy. You should hear some of the comments that were coming out about him. It does make me wonder how he could get such a love-hate reputation along the way, truly puzzling.

[Actuary321]

IANAL, but my understanding (perhaps our resident actutorney can provide more background) is that this is a rather strained interpretation of the "duty of loyalty" of board members under common law.



Another person presumably includes fellow board members.But once the board decides something is for the 'good of the organization' then all board members have a duty to support the decision of the board, don't they? Because the board by definition has the good of the organization in mind when taking the positions they do.

If this is true (and I'm not disputing that) why isn't John Parks leadership being called into question? As soon as he saw what was going on, he could have found a way to adjorn the meeting and stop the train but it appears that he stood by and watched. We don't know how he voted but the president of the AAA deserves a lot of blame for getting us in the NYT and he's not getting any. We've been focused on the Hartman/Bykerk angle but John Parks had a duty to try to keep this mess from playing out like it did and he failed. Same for the other Board members that thought the meeting was just about suspension. Did anyone say "whoa, let's take a deep breath?"

It could be that as soon as Hartman sent the resign or else email to Bruce that there was no turning back but I'd like to think that cooler heads could have prevailed if they spoke up.I believe we do know how the president of the AAA voted. It was stated else where that all members of the Executive committee of the board (including all officers of the AAA) voted against removal. And from my impression, there was a motion to not do anything and wait for the results of the ABCD but then a substitute motion was made. (Don't know for sure but that is my impression).

he voted to examine the issue, not to implement or promote FEM. As a board member I would hope he'd vote to explore issues that are relevant. FEM is relevant in that several other organization currently have something similar, but as he concluded many see it as damaging to the current system.I agree but go back to the email from Cecil that Bruce posted. Seems pretty clear that Cecil felt that taking a public position against FEM was being disloyal to the SOA board's decision to examine the issue.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

If this is true (and I'm not disputing that) why isn't John Parks leadership being called into question? As soon as he saw what was going on, he could have found a way to adjorn the meeting and stop the train but it appears that he stood by and watched. We don't know how he voted but the president of the AAA deserves a lot of blame for getting us in the NYT and he's not getting any. We've been focused on the Hartman/Bykerk angle but John Parks had a duty to try to keep this mess from playing out like it did and he failed. Same for the other Board members that thought the meeting was just about suspension. Did anyone say "whoa, let's take a deep breath?"I'm not sure I understand what your point is, or it's connection to the post you quoted. But we don't know exactly what Parks said or did at the meeting or how much power he has over the rest of the board on an issue like this in which they all take an active interest.

Your last two sentences seem to imply that there were in fact board members who did not realize the meeting could result in anything more than suspension. I'm having a hard time believing this to be the case, and think this is one of the weakest parts of Bruce's arguments in court. Everyone knew what Hartman and the ex-prezzes were after. It defies logic that anyone could have thought it was not a possibility in a meeting held for the purpose of discussing their concerns.
for that to be the case you would have to believe that Bruce's hot headeness, if that is the case, only manifested itself in the last 9 months and was wholly unknown for the prior 30 years which is quit hard to believe as he has been involved with many organizations and with many people over the last 30 years.You don't have to believe that it never manifested itself at all or was wholly unknown. All you have to believe is that it never manifested itself to that degree and was not known to that extent. Which is not unbelievable at all.

The higher a monkey climbs ...

[cubs1969]

My point was that whoever chaired the meeting (presumably John Park) should have figured out a parlimentary way to stop this from happening. The fact that he didn't do that places some blame on him, regardless of how he voted. It could be that there was no real parlimentary process from the start and the motion to remove was made and seconded in the midst of discussions but again, that's the chair's fault. He could have set the agenda to discuss suspension only and not entertain any motions to expand the agenda (BTW, I know nothing about parlimentary procedure, I'm just speculating.)

[The Mad Hatter]

OK, fine ... if Bruce's conduct was to the level of having defamed Sanford, then why hasn't the rest of the SOA board kicked him out for such conduct? And if he defamed Sanford, has anyone filed an official complaint with the ABCD?

In answer to the first question, since the Officers of the SOA are chosen by the members, only the members can remove him. It would in effect take a recall vote. On the second, I don't know if anyone has or not; ABCD stuff is confidential. And by the way, public documents are not.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

But once the board decides something is for the 'good of the organization' then all board members have a duty to support the decision of the board, don't they? Because the board by definition has the good of the organization in mind when taking the positions they do.I'm not sure that I personally agree with this as an ironclad rule. I would imagine it would depend on the manner in which the dissenter expressed his opposition, including but not limited to whether he impugned the motives and/or intelligence/competence of his fellow board members. I did not follow the FEM discussions here so I have no idea if Bruce crossed the line in my opinion.

But we are discussing the opinion of Cecil Bykerk here. It's quite possible that CB draws the line differently than where I would draw it, or where many fellow posters would draw it. But to the extent that we are speculating about CB's motivations in doing what he did, what counts is whether this is a possible motivation from his perspective, not whether we agree that his perspective was valid.

[Going a bit further, one possible reason that we might have a different perspective than CB is that we - or at least most of us - are not members of Boards of Directors. There's a culture to every type of institution, and it's possible that boards of directors operate in a culture that has mores that are not apparent to those who don't commonly serve on them. And this is significant for someone who goes against the grain in failing to conform to the social norms of the milieu in which he finds himself.

There's a Japanese proverb: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

Now BS is obviously quite familiar with BoDs, and I'm not saying he was a raving lunatic out there. But his activities might have struck some element of the board as being unboardlike, which raised the level of opposition to his candidacy to some degree]

My point was that whoever chaired the meeting (presumably John Park) should have figured out a parlimentary way to stop this from happening. The fact that he didn't do that places some blame on him, regardless of how he voted. It could be that there was no real parlimentary process from the start and the motion to remove was made and seconded in the midst of discussions but again, that's the chair's fault. He could have set the agenda to discuss suspension only and not entertain any motions to expand the agenda (BTW, I know nothing about parlimentary procedure, I'm just speculating.)I think your last sentence kind of invalidates the rest of the post.

[Merk]

You don't have to believe that it never manifested itself at all or was wholly unknown. All you have to believe is that it never manifested itself to that degree and was not known to that extent. Which is not unbelievable at all.

The higher a monkey climbs ...

Regardless of what lead to Bruce's ouster (whether it was the level of a transgression or the existence of a transgression) it seems unlikely that the behavior that led to his ouster would not manifest itself over 29.25 years, but then suddenly manifest itself over the .75 years preceding his ouster.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

My experience in life is that this type of thing happens all the time. I guess we have to disagree about this.

[Double High C]

I agree but go back to the email from Cecil that Bruce posted. Seems pretty clear that Cecil felt that taking a public position against FEM was being disloyal to the SOA board's decision to examine the issue.

They want jacksheeplasses!!!

[twig93]

Considering that the Academy is the umbrella organization that's supposed to represent the entire profession, it makes sense to have each of the other actuarial societies represented on its Board.

That doesn't mean that it should automatically fall to the Presidents. It could, in theory, be a person or persons that the society selects as "ambassador(s) to AAA" or something like that. Of course I suppose it ought to be up to the other societies to choose how they pick the people and if they choose to send the Presidents (and President-Elects) that's their prerogative.

However as members of SoA, CAS, CCA, ASPPA - we could start demanding that they send different people to the AAA - people that we the members select. (Yes, in practice this would be nigh impossible.)

[twig93]

but I am confident that the gnat is dead and the AO can take some credit for that. Really? I'm not. I was under the impression that the IAA and AAA boards (other than Bruce of course) couldn't care less what we think on AO.

[twig93]

Woulda/coulda for sure. But in fact the great majority of AAA board members had little or no knowledge of anything to do with Sarah Sanford. And the few who did (note that when the vote was taken the two SOA special directors were Cecil Bykerk and .. er. what was that guy's name? Oh yeah, not Mike McLaughlin. It was ... a ... a .. Bruce Schobel voting for himself!) did not have in depth knowledge. And the AAA "elections" are almost always unanimous any way. It is a go along to get along joint.

If they do such a poor job of vetting their candidates, then they deserve to be disappointed. They made their bed, now they need to lie in it.

I have yet to hear anyone say that wrt the Sanford case (and I have spoken with Jeremy Gold and specifically asked him) that Bruce did anything worse than say that she "looted" the SoA. It seems it was that comment that made him a named defendant in the lawsuit.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether Bruce was being a hothead or not... but I think everyone - including Bruce's staunchest enemies - would agree that he 100% believed what he was saying - that is to say that he felt that Sarah Sanford absolutely did loot the SoA. Perhaps it was bad judgment, in hindsight, to say that... but if so... why didn't Cecil say anything back when the AAA board was electing Bruce? Cecil certainly doesn't seem to have any love for Bruce and he's been around the SoA for a while now.

I don't think Bruce's comment is anything so terrible that it justifies being kicked out of his officer position in the AAA. (Might have made more sense to consider it before electing him, but that ship has sailed.) And to try & kick him out for political reasons is beyond disgusting.

[twig93]

You seem to be ignoring simple logical principles here. No one said that his removal was based in any large way on his posting. That may have been a big deal to some on the board but the record is clear. The root cause (and Judge Sullivan has more info than we) is the reaction of the 19 Ex-Presidents to the arbitration document.

Will somebody please post the damn thing already?

The 19 Ex-Presidents were saying things along the lines of "consider temporarily suspension". It was Cecil Bykerk that made the motion to permanently remove him and he cited FEM as his primary motivation.

[Wag, the Dog]

Your last two sentences seem to imply that there were in fact board members who did not realize the meeting could result in anything more than suspension. I'm having a hard time believing this to be the case, and think this is one of the weakest parts of Bruce's arguments in court. Everyone knew what Hartman and the ex-prezzes were after.Bruce was not ambushed on 8/5. He lost a political battle that played out over weeks. Those in favor of his retention and those opposed lobbied their fellow board members day after day. The options were to keep him, to oust him, to do something in between. Any director who says s/he did not know that these were the choices is playing dumb.

This was a big hot dynamite issue and all director votes were in play. It now looks like his opponents beat him inside the boardroom and Bruce has been beating them everywhere else.

Bruce has always been a better external communicator than any of his fellow board members on any of the boards. He has also been a genius at taking advantage of how our multiple organizations govern themselves -- trading votes and favors at one org for votes and favors at the others. But he seems to wear out his welcome as boards get to know him better.

Although Bruce may be the champion at clever politics across our multiple orgs, others play the game skillfully as well. This is a great weakness in our multiple org system. Getting real membership votes at all the orgs (like the SOA has now) could help but the problem will not go away as long as we have too many orgs.

Shout out to David Fleiss and Campbell and Occam.

[twig93]

A rhetorical question for some here to consider:

I keep reading about how Bruce is/was responsible for the SOA paying $2 million in an arbitration award, and how that's the reason [among others] he is/was unfit to be P-E of the AAA. However, I also keep reading about how Sanford was fired by a unanimous vote of the SOA board. Thus, it reads to me that the firing of Sanford wasn't orchestrated by one person - unless Bruce is really Chancellor Palpatine and used the Jedi mind trick to control the entire board to do his bidding.

So ... why aren't we talking about getting rid of everyone on the SOA board that voted to remove Sanford as well? Why are we simply focused on Schobel's act in the incident and ignoring the actions of everyone else that was involved? If the Sanford affair was so egregious that Schobel can't serve as an officer, then why should everyone involved in the firing of Sanford and the resulting $2 million payout get let off the hook? Are those people that voted to fire her similarly unfit to hold positions in the SOA/AAA/IAA/DDT/BBQ/WTF/OMG?

Something for people to consider.

To be fair to both sides here, Sanford sued specifically Bruce Schobel and the SoA. So it seems that it was specifically Bruce - an officer of the SoA - that she had the problem with.

My understanding is that everyone agreed that she needed to be fired, hence the unanimous firing. As I understand it, the lawsuit (ultimately settled in a confidential arbitration) was more about "defamation of character" than wrongful termination.

I'm sure you can see how it is theoretically possible for a group to unanimously vote to fire someone and only one of the members of the group engages in anything that would be considered "defamation of character".

ETA: That said, given that arbitrators do not have to follow the law, it would be incorrect for us to conclude, based on the award, that what Bruce did actually constituted the legal definition of defamation of character. It might have - it might not have.

I think we can all agree that Bruce sometimes has an abrasive personality and rubs people the wrong way. That personality is precisely what some of us love about him. But if he rubbed folks on the arbitration panel the wrong way... that could be the reason for the award.

[Wag, the Dog]

Really? I'm not. I was under the impression that the IAA and AAA boards (other than Bruce of course) couldn't care less what we think on AO.And they have no say in what the CAS, SOA and CIA decide. My belief is that the gnat is dead at the CAS and SOA. I don't know where it stands at CIA. IAA's role is non-existent. It is a figment of the AO based on Teddy et al pointing out that actuarial leaders in the US and Canada often end up in leadership positions at the IAA.

Given the negligible importance of the IAA in NA, the standing joke is that our orgs send their tired old leaders out to pasture at IAA meetings. Plus they can continue to travel on dimes other than your own.

[twig93]

How difficult is it to learn how to multiquote?

There are three buttons on the bottom left of a post. The first is 'Quote'. The second has quote marks and a plus sign. The third has a letter and a quill.

Click on the second of the three, on each post to which you would like to respond. Once you are on the last post to which you would like to respond, click the 'Quote' button. Ta da, you have one post, to which you can reply to each individual post with absolutely nothing of substance.

Seriously - thank-you for this. I've been on this board since 2003 and I did not know that. :tup:

I hate using pictures instead of words. Who the heck knows what those pictures mean? (Well, now we do, thanks to SirVLCIV.)

[KidCA]

To be fair to both sides here, Sanford sued specifically Bruce Schobel and the SoA. So it seems that it was specifically Bruce - an officer of the SoA - that she had the problem with.


Bruce said that Sanford "looted" the SoA--that was the defamation, iirc. This has been written before, that the term was an exaggeration, but nevertheless not something that could be proven as true by whatever arbitration standard. The vote to oust her was also unanimous. She probably had some wrong-doings or reasons to be ousted, but didn't exactly "LOOT".

Part of Bruce is that he has a loose mouth, which is great for transparency, but also get you in trouble, and sometimes in a lawsuit. This point is largely the platform, sanctimoniously perhaps, of those "removing" Bruce, from what I have gathered.

[twig93]

I don't think Bruce is a saint, but I don't think anything he's done rises to the occasion of needing to have him removed. The old conviction is moot IMO, and the Sandford thing is relevant, but also seems to have a lot of unknown elements, so its difficult to think that it was too damning since he's still on the SOA board. That only leaves personality/policy disagreements as motivation from my view. The collaboration to remove someone over an apparent personality/policy decision smacks of totalitarianism which is why I'm a little peeved at the current state, and kind of hope that these members get theirs when it comes back around. I don't think that's really a professional stance to take, but at this point I don't really care.
:iatp:

[Wag, the Dog]

If they do such a poor job of vetting their candidates, then they deserve to be disappointed.I think you don't understand how AAA officers and regular board members get their jobs. There are no candidates, just deal makers who wait their turn and then take their turn. Bruce played the game well and took his turn. The most democratically elected AAA board members are the SOA P and PE. The CAS P and PE come next.

The AO seems solidly in support of more popular elections for the AAA board. I agree. But don't spend time thinking that that will ever have any effect on credential education. It will have a tiny impact on continuing ed. The AAA is charged with being the public outreach arm for the profession. How does the AO think they have been doing as our premier communicators?

But many on the AO who can't really say that anything the AAA does has impacted them (certainly any impact is a tiny fraction of the impact that their credentialling orgs have had), want democracy for the wrong reason. They think that democracy would save Bruce. You argue that he was, somehow, properly elected and improperly ousted. The two processes were very similar. He worked the system (he was until just now the very center of that old boys network so often criticized on the AO) to get elected and others worked the system against him after they lost trust in him.

[twig93]

OK, fine ... if Bruce's conduct was to the level of having defamed Sanford, then why hasn't the rest of the SOA board kicked him out for such conduct? And if he defamed Sanford, has anyone filed an official complaint with the ABCD?

I honestly don't know where the ABCD's boundaries are. Stating that Sanford looted the SoA was not an "actuarial opinion". So it might not really be an ABCD issue.

I mean if I give my professional opinion that I think it's reasonable to assume a 35% average after-tax rate of return... that's ludicrous and would warrant an ABCD investigation. If I give a statement of actuarial opionion about P&C insurance when my only experience is in Life ... that warrants an ABCD investigation. If I make rude and false comments about a coworker's personal life... I don't think that's really an ABCD issue.

It's possible that the ABCD didn't view Bruce's statement that she looted the SoA as actuarial in nature.

Then again, I don't know exactly where their jurisdiction begins and ends, so maybe it is???

[Wag, the Dog]

ABCD stuff is confidential. And by the way, public documents are not.But Tom Bakos published his complaint about Hartman in public. The ABCD confidentiality rule is one-way only. The complainant can chose to enjoy confidentiality (and a privleged position in defense of defamation as a result) or he can exercise his right to breach it (as Tom has done) and lose the privilege protection if sued for defamation.

I don't think that any one would be punished by any court for publishing the Sanford arbitration document (despite Sullivan's gratuitous condemnation -- which has no legal force in itself but might affect his management of a jury trial if, as likely, he presides). Some actuaries may be prohibited by duties and codes from publishing the document.

IANAL

[Wag, the Dog]

Seriously - thank-you for this. I've been on this board since 2003 and I did not know that. :tup:

I hate using pictures instead of words. Who the heck knows what those pictures mean? (Well, now we do, thanks to SirVLCIV.)But you have to be logged on beforeyou can multiquote. You can single quote without prior logon (of course you will still have to logon).

[twig93]

Yeah, he is not a team player. He voted for FEM as an SOA board member and then publicly advocated against it. And from the sound of it, even if he had voted against EXPLORATION of the idea of FEM, what Cecil said seems to imply that Bruce would still be bound to not campaign against it because the Board had taken a particular position and he had a duty of loyalty to the board.

Since your post is not in red: :yellowcard:

Bruce voted to "explore" FEM, *not* to adopt it.

If I were opposed to FEM all along and thought that membership would be overwhelmingly opposed to it as well... I would probably vote to further explore it, knowing that the exploration would almost certainly result in membership making their negative opinions known. Then I'd be able to point to membership objections in my endeavor to block FEM.

I think that's most likely what Bruce was doing and I think it's a perfectly reasonable tactic.

[SirVLCIV]

But many on the AO who can't really say that anything the AAA does has impacted them (certainly any impact is a tiny fraction of the impact that their credentialling orgs have had), want democracy for the wrong reason. They think that democracy would save Bruce. You argue that he was, somehow, properly elected and improperly ousted. The two processes were very similar. He worked the system (he was until just now the very center of that old boys network so often criticized on the AO) to get elected and others worked the system against him after they lost trust in him.

The motives you've assumed those in favor of greater democracy are, to put it bluntly, wrong.

[twig93]

[Bruce]had a duty of loyalty to the board.
IANAL, but my understanding (perhaps our resident actutorney can provide more background) is that this is a rather strained interpretation of the "duty of loyalty" of board members under common law.



Another person presumably includes fellow board members.

If Bruce felt that FEM was bad for the organization, then he has a duty of loyalty to oppose it.

[SirVLCIV]

If Bruce felt that FEM was bad for the organization, then he has a duty of loyalty to oppose it.

Agreed.

[twig93]

But once the board decides something is for the 'good of the organization' then all board members have a duty to support the decision of the board, don't they?

Perhaps, but the board has *not* yet to this day decided to implement FEM. So therefore even by this logic, Bruce would be under no obligation to support it.

[twig93]

I think you don't understand how AAA officers and regular board members get their jobs. There are no candidates, just deal makers who wait their turn and then take their turn.

I'm not disagreeing that this is how it works, but I stand by my earlier statement: if they do such a poor job of vetting their candidates, they deserve to be disappointed.

Just because the process that you describe might be how it works in practice... that doesn't make it acceptable, and it is certainly not a valid excuse for not vetting candidates.

[Will Durant]

Not sure what thread to put this in, but I actually LOL when I read this from one of the legal documents.

By the Academy’s logic, if one of these emailers had said that Mr. Schobel should be hanged, drawn and quartered by the Board, then Mr. Schobel should have reasonably expected that eventuality. Presumably, the Academy would argue that such punishment would not be “discipline” either.

[asdfasdf]

for that to be the case you would have to believe that Bruce's hot headeness, if that is the case, only manifested itself in the last 9 months and was wholly unknown for the prior 30 years which is quit hard to believe as he has been involved with many organizations and with many people over the last 30 years.

:iatp:

Bruce was not ambushed on 8/5. He lost a political battle that played out over weeks. Those in favor of his retention and those opposed lobbied their fellow board members day after day. The options were to keep him, to oust him, to do something in between. Any director who says s/he did not know that these were the choices is playing dumb.

This was a big hot dynamite issue and all director votes were in play. It now looks like his opponents beat him inside the boardroom and Bruce has been beating them everywhere else.

Bruce has always been a better external communicator than any of his fellow board members on any of the boards. He has also been a genius at taking advantage of how our multiple organizations govern themselves -- trading votes and favors at one org for votes and favors at the others. But he seems to wear out his welcome as boards get to know him better.

Although Bruce may be the champion at clever politics across our multiple orgs, others play the game skillfully as well. This is a great weakness in our multiple org system. Getting real membership votes at all the orgs (like the SOA has now) could help but the problem will not go away as long as we have too many orgs.

Shout out to David Fleiss and Campbell and Occam.

So, why then, did the judge not agree that Bruce had been given proper notice that he was being considered for removal, why make it "unofficially official" when they could just make it official, I would contend that it is because the 19 ex pres' who signed the letter wouldn't have agreed with that. cloak and dagger stuff, even if there aren't alterior motives it definately makes it look like there are.

...

I think we can all agree that Bruce sometimes has an abrasive personality ....

I have not met Bruce personally, so would not agree with that, but, if it were to read those that have met Bruce would agree he sometimes has an abrasive personality then I would be fine with it.

And they have no say in what the CAS, SOA and CIA decide. My belief is that the gnat is dead at the CAS and SOA. I don't know where it stands at CIA. IAA's role is non-existent. It is a figment of the AO based on Teddy et al pointing out that actuarial leaders in the US and Canada often end up in leadership positions at the IAA.

Given the negligible importance of the IAA in NA, the standing joke is that our orgs send their tired old leaders out to pasture at IAA meetings. Plus they can continue to travel on dimes other than your own.

Well, maybe if your connected that is what you see, what I see is the AAA president spear-heading the removal of the AAA president, that doesn't look like a tired old leader out to pasture to me, that looks like dirty quid-pro-quo politics.

[Shaft]

But Tom Bakos published his complaint about Hartman in public. The ABCD confidentiality rule is one-way only. The complainant can chose to enjoy confidentiality (and a privleged position in defense of defamation as a result) or he can exercise his right to breach it (as Tom has done) and lose the privilege protection if sued for defamation.

I don't think that any one would be punished by any court for publishing the Sanford arbitration document (despite Sullivan's gratuitous condemnation -- which has no legal force in itself but might affect his management of a jury trial if, as likely, he presides). Some actuaries may be prohibited by duties and codes from publishing the document.

IANALHey, don't let truth or accuracy get in the way of your posting! Are you the kind of guy who would still be arguing some stupid point after the crowd have moved on to party and make lurve? I think you are. Your style of posting suggests that.

[Harry]

Hey, don't let truth or accuracy get in the way of your posting! Are you the kind of guy who would still be arguing some stupid point after the crowd have moved on to party and make lurve? I think you are. Your style of posting suggests that.
Yeah, I mean, why should a judge use his judgment based on court filings? That would be silly.