2005 Second Ballot

[RDH]

SOA 2005 SECOND BALLOT
in the order they will appear on the ballot

President-Elect
Edward L. Robbins
Cecil D. Bykerk
Christian J. DesRochers

Vice-President
Jay M. Jaffe
Ethan E. Kra
Mike Lombardi
S. Michael McLaughlin
Donald J. Segal
Kathleen R. Wong
Thomas R. Corcoran

Elected Board Member
Charles D. Friedstat
C. Ian Genno
Jack L. Gibson
Charles L. Gilbert
James M. Glickman
Roy Goldman
Abraham S. Gootzeit
Allen M. Klein
Cynthia S. Miller
Sim Segal
Noel John Abkemeier
Jeffrey A. Beckley
Bruce Cadenhead
Edward W. Frees

[CDesRochers]

Well, I made it to the second ballot, so thank you to all of the RF'ers who voted for me on the first ballot (I think!).

The voting was slightly higher than last year, but still pretty low (28%). If you didn't vote on the first ballot please consider participating on the second ballot.

Seriously, I appreciate your support.

Chris

[Malik Shabazz]

I would vote for you if I could, Chris. ;)

[Traci]

CONGRATULATIONS Chris!

:tup:

[Brad Gile]

I would vote for you if I could, Chris. ;)

Well, I did that for you, MS. :wink:

Brad

[Malik Shabazz]

Well, I did that for you, MS. :wink:

Brad Thanks Brad. :tup:

[annabel lee]

I know it's a male-dominated profession and all, but this? Is pathetic.

On the Second Ballot, we'll have:

President-Elect
3 men.

Vice-President
6 men, 1 woman.

Elected Board Member
13 men, 1 woman.

[Katie.]

I know it's a male-dominated profession and all, but this? Is pathetic.

On the Second Ballot, we'll have:

President-Elect
3 men.

Vice-President
6 men, 1 woman.

Elected Board Member
13 men, 1 woman.

Looks like the leadership of my company. :( There are definitely a dearth of female actuarial role models.

[bdschobel]

I know it's a male-dominated profession and all, but this? Is pathetic.

On the Second Ballot, we'll have:

President-Elect
3 men.

Vice-President
6 men, 1 woman.

Elected Board Member
13 men, 1 woman.
I'm probably going to regret this, but....

The gender mix of candidates is not necessarily the same or even close to the gender mix of the profession as a whole. While recent cohorts of FSAs have been roughly 50/50 split by gender, older cohorts were predominantly male, increasingly so as you go back in time. And candidates for the Board tend to be older, for obvious reasons such as service to the profession and name recognition. Few recent Fellows have toiled long enough in the trenches of the SOA to be serious candidates for the Board, although obviously some have -- and some of them have won. I'm not trying to state a rule, just making observations.

Without trying to follow in the footsteps of Larry Summers, I will suggest that personal choices and circumstances play a role, as well. If the most active volunteers in the actuarial profession seem to be men -- and I'm not saying that's a fact, just a hypothesis -- maybe that's because men tend to have more free time outside of their jobs and their homes. Forgive this generalization, but I suspect that I'm not the only one to observe that women -- married women, in particular -- tend to do more than men with respect to housework and child-care responsibilities. That being the case -- if it truly is -- then we can understand why women FSAs may not be active at the level necessary to be considered for a Board seat -- and may not even want those spots.

To preclude some flaming, allow me to say that I am and for more than 30 years have been happy to serve on several Boards and countless professional committees with both men and women actuaries, FSAs and non-FSAs. I don't have any problem with people of any gender, race, sexual preference or anything else (although stupid tends to get to me!). But I have to defend the profession when people blindly count candidates and suggest -- maybe I'm inferring too much here -- that some sort of discrimination is evident. I really don't think so.

Finally, I will note that the SOA Elections Committee works hard to ensure that all practice areas and countries (U.S. and Canada, anyway) are adequately represented on the Board. Some seats are reserved for certain types of candidates, nearly every year. The committee does not have similar criteria with respect to gender -- and I agree with that. I would not want to artificially increase the number of women on the Board, just to have more women. I just want the people who will best serve the profession to win. I hope that we can all agree on that.

Bruce

[Gretchen]

You did a good job of tiptoeing, Bruce!

And for the record, as a woman, I agree with your hypothesis as to why there might be fewer women. I think in total this is one of the least discriminatory fields around - most of us are very logical thinkers and look at people for what they know/can do, not for what they look like, etc.

[bdschobel]

And the exams are about as objective as they could possibly be, which is very helpful.

Thanks for observing my tiptoeing! :)

Bruce

[Maine-iac]

I have to agree with Bruce on this one. I've been an FSA since 1993. My "class" happened to be the first in which the number of new female FSAs was slightly higher than the number of new male FSAs. AFAIK, it's been running around 50/50 ever since.

I have NEVER experienced any kind of gender discrimination within the SOA or CAS (except for the president emeritus who gave out the FSA certificates at the FAC and only wanted to kiss the female FSAs. :wink: ). Occasionally I might see an "old boy" attitude at certain companies, but I've never felt it from the societies. Male or female, the societies will gladly suck up the volunteer time of any member willing to give it. And I have not seen that the membership is unwilling to elect females who do make it on the slate.

As to whether the younger female members are less willing to volunteer than the younger male members, I have no idea if that is true or not, and if it is, then why that might be. I don't volunteer with the SOA because I am presently more active in the CAS.

(edited to say sorry if this is the wrong place to say this because I'm not a candidate.)

[Gandalf]

And I have not seen that the membership is unwilling to elect females who do make it on the slate.
The (unfortunately) limited experience of the first ballot seems to agree.

There was one candidate whose sex I am not certain of from the name, but there were only 3 (or max 4) females on the first ballot; 2 of them made it to the second ballot. Maybe if the one who didn't had visited this forum, she would also have reached the second ballot.

[KathyWong]

As one of the two remaining female candidates on the ballot, I’ll add my two cents. I think Bruce’s theories are right. The lower percentage of females going into the actuarial profession 25 years ago means there are fewer female actuaries in senior positions now. And due to having more home-related responsibilities along with their jobs, females may well have been less apt to volunteer with the SOA in their spare time. I know I waited until my three kids reached middle school age before I even started volunteering, which was 12 + years after receiving my FSA.

Having said that, I will point out that this year’s ballot is a bit of an anomaly compared to recent years. Three years ago, when I was first elected to the Board, one of the three new vice presidents and three of the six new Board members were female. In the following year two females were elected to the Board, and last year again one of the new vice presidents and three of the new Board members were female. So we actually have had a reasonably strong female representation on the Board.

As Bruce pointed out, the committee on elections (appropriately) does not consider gender in developing the slate of nominations. They try to get the candidates they think will best serve the SOA.

[annabel lee]

Oh, I certainly didn't think it was discriminatory, and I definitely did not intend to imply anything like that. I was just a little disappointed to see an apparent dearth of women interested in running. Then again, I suppose I'm part of the problem, as I didn't run...but then again (again!), I've only been an FSA for less than two years. And I'm on an exam committee, so I'm doing a little bit, at least.

[JMO]

I will point out that this year’s ballot is a bit of an anomaly compared to recent years. Three years ago, when I was first elected to the Board, one of the three new vice presidents and three of the six new Board members were female. In the following year two females were elected to the Board, and last year again one of the new vice presidents and three of the new Board members were female. So we actually have had a reasonably strong female representation on the Board.


Thanks for the additional insight. I think anomaly is exactly the point, and we actuaries should not be surprised at an occasional non-representative sample set.

[CDesRochers]

I have been called many things in my life, but "non-representative sample set" is a first. It might also be helpful to point out that many of the key Society staff, includiing our Executive Director, are women.

Chris

[Karen Gentilcore]

FYI - There are currently 9 women on the SOA Board of Governors out of 28. Three of these have terms ending this year. Thus for next year's BOG, there will be a minimum of 6 and possibly as many as 8 women on the BOG.

[exactuary]

This thread goes on and on with everyone agreeing that the man woman ratio in SOA leadership is not evidence of discrimination (or much of anything else) while questions asked in the other thread (First Ballot Results) by me and by Jazzman2 remain entirely unaddressed.

[Mike McLaughlin]

Can you restate your question(s). Try to be specific. We candidates generally have good intentions but with all the web sites, snail mail, Email and voice mail sometimes we don't get to everything as promptly as we should. Plus, my typing finger gets so tired ...

[bdschobel]

I guess I'm twice as fast as you are, Mike. I use two fingers! :)

Bruce

[jazzman2]

Mr. McClaughlin et al...

The candidates should be closest to the issues. What are the questions that we should be asking the candidates to understand the important issues?

Mr. DesRochers posted a question to other presidential candidates about what is their most important issue over the next few years. I have not seen a response from any of the other presidential candidates. Have they quit reading this?

Let's hear from the VP & Board candidates also.

[Mike McLaughlin]

Fair question, Jazzman. The more I think about it is the more I think it's a pretty good question--sort of digging one layer deeper than just zapping the candidates with why did we change the syllabus on Part X.

Perhaps what I wrestle with as a Board member the most is, do I go along with some new idea, or not. There's lots of issues, and lots of ideas about dealing with them. Each board member has a pet project or two, should we allocate resources to this new idea, whatever it is. Or there's some new crisis in the financial press. When a new idea comes up it's interesting to see the dynamics. Some board members resist change of any kind--if it was good enough for actuaries of past generations, then it's good enough for me. <<bang fist on table>> Other board members are agreeable to everything--a new task force, a new symposium, a new journal, they never met an idea they didn't like.

The board is made up of diverse views, and I'd say they are in reasonably good balance. I come out more on the side of, we need to change, and adapt, to keep up with rapid change in our environment. Some new projects have to be rejected as too expensive, or not necessary, perhaps. But we have to be thinking about change all the time. Change to the syllabus, change (wow!) to our education system, relationships with universities and other organizations, etc. etc. I tend to err on the side of more willingness to accept change rather than less. But a few severe resistant attitudes can really slow down our progress.

So my question to other candidates (pres-elect, VP, or board) would be, what is your attitude to change? Should the Society try to maintain its present position as much as possible relative to credentials, employers, education, professionalism, international relationships and so on? Will you resist change? Or are you willing to consider new ideas, new approaches, and be open to the possibility of doing things a new way?

There's no one perfect question, not just one mega-issue--but our world is increasingly dynamic and our board has to listen to lots of new ideas, not accept them all, but consider new, better ways to enhance the profession and serve our members best. Will our board candidates try to reach that ideal balance?

[KathyWong]

We’ve accumulated a few separate questions here, so I’ll try to respond to each of them.

Jazzman asked us to identify the right questions to ask candidates to help members understand the important issues. One approach is to ask broad questions, such as Chris DesRochers did – what is your most important issue over the next few years? The SOA also had us answer that type of question on the first ballot – what do you consider to be a significant challenge facing the actuarial profession? The work of the Board covers a broad territory, so these questions help you understand what we see as the big issues. Further candidate statements and responses will be released for the second ballot, so I encourage you to review those.

I think another valid approach is for you as a member to consider how you are most affected by what the SOA does and ask us our positions on those issues. For example, do you have strong feelings about the way the exam system works? Ask whether we support the new system that is being put in place, whether we think the E&E system should continue to be re-vamped every five years, whether we should give credit for university courses in place of exams, whether we should cut the number of exams to significantly reduce travel time. Are you concerned about future opportunities for actuaries in light of consolidation of the insurance industry or the reduced number of defined benefit pension plans? Ask us whether we think this is an issue and what we think should be done to expand the roles of actuaries. These types of questions I think need to come from the readers of the forum, so we as candidates can get an idea of what your issues are.

In response to Chris’ question – What is my most important issue over the next few years? My answer would be the need to broaden the market’s perception of the capabilities of actuaries and address the increasing competition from other financial professionals for jobs in our areas of expertise. The image campaign is a step toward addressing that issue and something that I firmly support. The various initiatives to create a leading role for actuaries in the area of Enterprise Risk Management are an important aspect of this campaign.

Mike asked us to respond to a question about our attitudes toward change. A question I find difficult to answer in the abstract. Clearly the world around us is changing and we must be able to adapt to it. I think we on the Board need to be open to change and willing to question the status quo. But we also need to be aware of our history and our commitments to members and make sure we are considering those perspectives as we initiate changes. As Mike says, there needs to be a balance.

[jazzman2]

Another question for the small group of candidates that come to the Outpost:

I do not pay my own membership dues (my employer does), but I notice that dues for the Academy have gone up a lot and the SOA dues are significant. What do you think about combining the organizations? I know that each organization has a different mission, but we are a pretty small profession to have so many organizations with big membership dues.

I have got to think that our esteemed leaders have considered this before?

[bdschobel]

Friction among the profusion of actuarial organizations is one of the biggest problems facing the actuarial profession. The problem just keeps getting worse, in my opinion. It leads to a shameful waste of both financial and volunteer resources, duplication of activities (data bases, for instance) and divergent priorities. I have personally invested a great deal of energy in trying to coordinate the activities of the various organizations, with a certain amount of success, but I have only scratched the surface. Incidentally, every time I have run for SOA office, I have included a statement that I would continue to work on this problem, which I consider very serious.

Other professions are much more unified, and this -- in addition to being larger, of course! -- leads to greater influence. The actuarial profession does great damage to itself by having too many organizations that often do not cooperate with each other.

Bruce

[Malik Shabazz]

Thanks, jazzman2, for asking that, and thank you, Bruce, for your response. I think we all understand that each actuarial organization serves a slightly different purpose, but I think that better coordination and (possibly) eventual merger might serve the profession better.

PS - A few years ago I quit my job and relocated, then I took some time off before looking for another job. Not a bad idea, but I made the mistake of being out of work in December and January and, for the first time in my career, I had to pay my own dues. Ouch!

[CDesRochers]

There is no question that the issue of multiple organizations is one that the profession has and will continue to wrestle with. It is slated as a discusison item at the June Board meeting. There is much confusion among the members at large about the role that each plays. One thing to note is that the Academy's constituency is in the US, while the SOA has members all over the world. There is a great deal of membership overlap, but it is not 100%.