SOA Election Error

[fsa]

One of the VP's and one Board member were incorrectly declared winners in the election. (Like the old joke, there are 3 types of actuaries: those who can count and those who can't.)

The SOA has revised the election results now to include the correct winners (Thomas Corcoran at VP and Charles Gilbert on the Bd). http://elections.soa.org/

However, rather than bounce the two losers, they are temporarily expanding the Board. I guess they were trying not to hurt people's feelings.

[urysohn]

Is that within their power? Expanding the board after an election?? In effect, only deciding to expand the Board once it was known who would fill those positions?

I'm not trying to say there is favoritism in the decision, don't get me wrong.

This strikes me as the wrong decision, and one they might not have the authority to make.

[Maine-iac]

For an actuarial society, this is REALLY embarrasing.

[campbell]

Heck, if I were one of the two losers, I'd resign my position on the Board rather than take it due to a counting error. This does not seem kosher to me.

[lawfi5h]

Interesting....cause if they make a mistake and tell people they got a 6, and later have to retract it and say "oops, you got a 5"....they don't get credit for the exam.


Yes, this has happened...and it was a high enough exam that some of those 6s thought they now had credentials...but they didn't. :shake2:

[bdschobel]

The recount identified two people who really won, even though they had been erroneously identified as losers. They will join the Board in the fall. The SOA is not going to identify the two "winners" who were really losers -- and they will also join the Board. I agree that this error is embarrassing, but the solution seems like the best one possible.

Bruce

[glenn]

The recount identified two people who really won, even though they had been erroneously identified as losers. They will join the Board in the fall. The SOA is not going to identify the two "winners" who were really losers -- and they will also join the Board. I agree that this error is embarrassing, but the solution seems like the best one possible.

Bruce
I respectfully disagree. The correct solution is to add the two members who got voted in, and remove the two members who didn't get voted in. Then apologize profusely to the two members who didn't get in.

The SOA took the easy solution, not the best one.

[Don Quijote]

I'm with Glenn on this one. Given the public spirit expressed by all the candidates, I don't think the two being informed that they were not, in fact, winners would be offended.

[Steve White]

I hoped Kathy Wong would win, and she may well have been among the top 3 vote getters.

At risk of seeing her not in office, I can't understand the decision. I expect Chris DesRochers will get over any hurt feelings (fsa's term in post 1) at not being elected president, and that those who almost got enough votes to be elected VP or board member can also manage.

[thtevie]

As a pre-ASA student who is unable to vote, this decision stinks. If this is how a "professional" organization runs not only its elections but its board, why have elections at all? If you're going to change the "results" and add new people who should have been elected, you should also remove those who shoudn't have been elected. I'm with glenn.

[Will Durant]

Excuse my candor, but this is banana republic politics at its worst.

At the very least, I hope we never again hear an SOA official talking about low voter turnout.

[urysohn]

I agree that this error is embarrassing, but the solution seems like the best one possible.

Bruce
Just curious about my earlier assertion/question. Is this something the Board actually had the authority to do, even if they really wanted to? Essentially, they appointed a VP and a Board member without an election.

[bdschobel]

SOA's general counsel advised the Board when it debated what to do last Friday. (Incidentally, I was on a Mediterranean cruise and unable to participate in the teleconference but caught up afterwards.) The Board obviously believes that it has the authority to solve the problem in this way. How does this decision damage anybody?

Bruce

[glenn]

Just curious about my earlier assertion/question. Is this something the Board actually had the authority to do, even if they really wanted to? Essentially, they appointed a VP and a Board member without an election.
See my thread in the reef where I make additional appointment suggestions using the same process ;).

[Maine-iac]

I can sympathize with the motive to save embarrassment to those who were wrongly named winners, through no fault of their own.

It is rather humiliating to go to your boss and say "You remember when I told you that I'll be serving as an SOA VP next year? It was all a mistake, and I lost after all. Never mind."

But to hand out VP and Board positions without elections in order to save face calls into question the integrity of the process. First we can't count, then we don't follow our own rules? And we're the folks certifying the reserves? It's really not a good thing.

The Board may have the authority to set aside the rules for elections, but use of that authority OUGHT to be reserved for extreme situations such as the death of an elected candidate prior to taking his or her seat or something equally extreme.

[Brad Gile]

As others have pointed out, this decision is embarassingly foolish. This is not one of the SOA's finest moments. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


Brad

[Wyo]

However, rather than bounce the two losers, they are temporarily expanding the Board. I guess they were trying not to hurt people's feelings.

Oh good lord. This is so incredibly HIGH SCHOOL. Like they screwed up the voting in the cheerleader tryouts or something. Hell, it's only 2 more sets of pom-poms.

Any idea how this might affect the SOA budget? I guess that means our dues will have to support two more people and their travel costs to meetings, etc.

[bdschobel]

A few more facts to help people evaluate this obviously unfortunate situation:

1. The SOA contracted out its on-line election process. The contractor screwed up. The SOA identified the error. It's still embarrassing, but not as bad as it might seem at first.

2. The Board's decision was made without any knowledge of who would be added or possibly removed from the Board as a result of recounting the votes. While additional people are being appointed, nobody knew who they would be while considering the various options.

3. None of the VP winners really lost. (I should have chosen my words more carefully in an earlier post on this subject.) After the votes were properly counted, two people tied for third place in the VP balloting. The SOA's constitution doesn't say what to do in case of a tie.

Bruce

[bdschobel]

Any idea how this might affect the SOA budget? I guess that means our dues will have to support two more people and their travel costs to meetings, etc.
Yes. I would estimate the marginal cost of two additional Board members at roughly $10,000/year. Remember that one of the "extra" members drops off after 2 year, and the other drops off after 3 years. The cost doesn't seem large enough to drive the decision either way. Just my 2 cents.

Bruce

[glenn]

How does this decision damage anybody?

Bruce
It doesn't damage anyone any more than taking my exam answers out of the exam damages anyone.

It's not in the agreed upon rules, so don't be changing the rules afterwards. (not you specifically Bruce). Follow the rules. If the society makes a mistake, admit it and fix it. Suck it up, don't make new rules up to fit the mistake.

I could provide numerous hypothetical situations where people run/don't run or vote/don't vote based on prior assumptions - assumptions that got changed and would have changed the voting/running for office.

[Sam Cox]

The Board should not appoint its members because doing so subverts the election process.

The results should have been corrected. The Board should have interfered only because the rules do not say how to handle the draw. It could have resolved the draw, perhaps by a coin flip.

The staff and volunteers responsible for the election process should have anticipated that a draw might occur even though it is an extreme event.

[Maine-iac]

Well, the possibility of a tie SHOULD have been addressed in the election by-laws, but since it wasn't, and the situation has to be addressed now, I can accept "In the event of a tie for a VP position, the available VP positions will be temporarily expanded to encompass both candidates." It's not my favorite solution, but it would do until the by-laws are amended to address ties. (What if it had been the presidency? Would we have gone for two presidents?)

That still leaves the extra board member, and if that wasn't a tie, it still seems wrong to do an end run around the concept that "the candidates with the most votes from the membership will fill the pre-determined number of slots".

OK, the vendor made the mistake. That might make us feel marginally better, but it doesn't have any bearing on the proper way to proceed now that the mistake has been made. Though I would hope that the SOA is getting some or all of the money paid to the vendor refunded in compensation for their screw-up. :)

[Take 2]

For an actuarial society, this is REALLY embarrasing.
I agree! Oh, I thought you were reefering to your spelling of embarrassing.

[Take 2]

Yes. I would estimate the marginal cost of two additional Board members at roughly $10,000/year. Remember that one of the "extra" members drops off after 2 year, and the other drops off after 3 years. The cost doesn't seem large enough to drive the decision either way. Just my 2 cents.

Bruce
Let's see, 2 cents times 10,000 or so members = $10,000 per year. So you're estimating we'll each put in our two cents every week?!

sorry, I forgot the actuarial axiom, 1 + 1 = whatever the boss wants it to be ;)

Useful fashion note: In case of a tie, a jacket is optional :)

[bdschobel]

...I would hope that the SOA is getting some or all of the money paid to the vendor refunded in compensation for their screw-up.
Legal remedies are being pursued.

Bruce

[Westley]

For an actuarial society, this is REALLY embarrasing.

You have quite the knack for understatement. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

[jazzman2]

This discussion is amazing. It is even more amazing if people really believe what they are saying.

We elect the SOA board to make decisions in the best interest of the SOA. They have made their decision and it sounds like they thought about what they were doing.

So, why are we having this discussion???

[Westley]

We elect the SOA board to make decisions in the best interest of the SOA. They have made their decision and it sounds like they thought about what they were doing.

And there are rules about how these things work because apparently we don't trust each and every person/board to just make up a totally new system and do whatever they want. Why do you so blindly trust the people on the board that you don't mind if they just ignore the rules that were given to them (by us)?

We all agreed that there would be X people. We wrote it down. And the board said "screw you, we want X+2, so we'll do it and we won't ask you for approval." It's amazing to me that you think this is ok.

Can I assume that if they ignored the written down rules and changed the exam system to have only 1 exam and invalidated all prior FSAs, you wouldn't have a problem with that either? I mean, we elected them, and they made their decision.

[glenn]

The real question is whether the SOA is going to do anything (i.e. reconsider) or if this entire conversation is pointless. I'm guessing door number 2.

[Maine-iac]

It's especially a problem when you let the board make the rules regarding how you get on the board. The membership should vote on the rules to determine the leadership. Not the leadership themselves.

Not that I think there was any corruption here, I certainly don't. But that's no way to govern a professional society.

[Gal Friday]

It's especially a problem when you let the board make the rules regarding how you get on the board. The membership should vote on the rules to determine the leadership. Not the leadership themselves.

Not that I think there was any corruption here, I certainly don't. But that's no way to govern a professional society.

I agree. I don't think anyone was doing anything malicious here, but it still was not the proper way to deal with the situation. The precendent they are setting by making up their own rules for how many people and who are on the board after the election has already taken place is just wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Best of intentions or not, it's not the way it should have been handled.

[Lucy]

This discussion is amazing. It is even more amazing if people really believe what they are saying.

We elect the SOA board to make decisions in the best interest of the SOA. They have made their decision and it sounds like they thought about what they were doing.

So, why are we having this discussion???Because criticism of decisions already made is one way that elected officials get feedback from their constituants. Because what they did is abysmal, and maybe there is still time to correct the error. Because maybe if there's enough of an uproar it will discourage them from doing something like this if a similar situation ever emerges.

I agree with Maine-iac. If there was a tie, and the rules don't specify what to do, then the board needs to make up a rule for the immediate event, and address the issue in the future with a more formal rule change (perhaps by amending the constitution.) The usual procedure is a run-off election, but hiring both sounds okay. But adding a member to the board because an election-software vendor messed up is, at best, silly.

[BigMactuary,]

I think that in 2000 we should have decided to have both Gore and Bush as co-presidents.

[twig93]

In his autobiography (and undoubtedly other places as well) Ronald Reagan stated that "once a bureaucracy is formed, its top priority is survival."

I'm assuming that some of the members of the board were re-elected (apologies if this is not the case) and may well have been concerned about losing their own spot on the board if they took back the "loser's" position: each member on the board might have been thinking: "What if the loser is me? I don't want to lose my spot, so I'd better vote to keep the person on, just in case."

When the US Presidential election results in an electoral tie, the incoming senate chooses the Vice President among the top two vote-getters. If the senate is also tied, the outgoing Vice-President casts the tie-breaking vote for Vice-President. So if there had been an electoral tie in the 2004 election and the incoming senate was divided 50-50, Dick Cheney would have cast the tie-breaking vote (presumably) for himself.

These both constitute flaws in the system. Fortunately one of the scenarios has never happened.

[BigMactuary,]

I am gonna go out on a limb and say that my friends here are making a bigger issue out of this than it really is.

I am not aware of the inner workings of the Society. However, it is safe to assume that it is an educational/professional entity. It doesn’t get funds from the government, the use of which its members can control. Someone serving on the SOA board is likely not thinking of running for the presidency of the US. I would like to think that the board is primarily concerned with the advancement of the profession and recognition of actuaries in both traditional and non-traditional areas. If this is true than I don’t see why it makes a difference whether 8 or 10 or 12 people work on the board, as long as the board can get the job done.

Most of us are just focusing on a petty issue here without thinking of the larger picture. And no I don’t think it’s a big mistake the SOA made. Lets not lose focus here.

[Gandalf]

Board members cannot run (or at least none of the outgoing Board members did run) for the board member position.

Outgoing board members can run for vice president. One of the initial winners, Kathy Wong, was an outgoing board member. That was the election that was tied, and she may not have been the tied candidate.

[exactuary]

There is a moral dilemma for pension actuaries that occurs from time to time. The Enrolled actuary takes over a case from another actuary at the same firm and discovers an error.

Like our Board vote, it is a simple numerical error.

Our rules of conduct (and the pertinent legislation) leave no room for creative solutions to the problem. The professionally correct and legal response is as simple as the error. Disclose it. Fix it.

[twig93]

Board members cannot run (or at least none of the outgoing Board members did run) for the board member position.

Outgoing board members can run for vice president. One of the initial winners, Kathy Wong, was an outgoing board member. That was the election that was tied, and she may not have been the tied candidate.

That's good to know - it sounds like there was only one person possibly directly affected by the outcome that had a say in how the error and the tie were handled. That does make me feel a little better.

I still think the decision was crazy, especially wrt the error. The tie was a little grayer area since there's no procedure for what to do in the event of a tie.

If the error hadn't been discovered for another 6 months and the incorrectly elected person was already serving on the board then the board's decision would have made a lot more sense. ('You're doing great work, but we'd like you to abandon it immediately'...)

But when it happened so shortly after the election, I just don't think there's enough justification for not owning up to and correcting the error. Sure, it would have been embarrassing for the guy that lost, but not really any more so than if he'd been told he lost initially. Chances are his boss already knew that he was running (would someone really run without discussing it with their boss first?) - it's not like it's going to have any more of a negative effect on his career than just losing the election outright would have.

[urysohn]

Most of us are just focusing on a petty issue here without thinking of the larger picture.
No, I'd say it's quite the opposite. Many of us are so focused on the bigger issue (following the rules; executing with the highest ethical standards) that we are willing to get into an uproar over something petty (an extra 1-2 board members).

As actuaries we do hold ourselves to very high standards. Don't sign something on January 2 and claim you signed it on December 31. Increase reserves on a block of business even though it hurts the company's bottom line. Charge higher premiums rather than set them at a marketing-friendly ultra-aggressive rate. We make tough ethical decisions every day rather than take the easy way out.

The Board decided to stand by flawed election results. Results which could have been easily corrected. Quite simple really. They know who the top 3 vote-getters were. The top 3 get positions. Why would they not follow this path? What possible reason would there be for not following this easy solution.
There's one reason. They took the easy way out rather than do the right thing.
And personally I find their course of action to be quite disappointing.

[no]

They took the easy way out rather than do the right thing.
And personally I find their course of action to be quite disappointing.

What are we going to do about it?

We have a number of options
1) Just vent on this board
2) Voters writting letters to the board and the committee on election
3) Boycott next election
4) Boycott one SOA meeting
5) All the other options that I did not mention

[Kenny]

5) All the other options that I did not mentionVoice your opinion in the Desert here http://forums.soa.org/thread.jspa?threadID=1741

[E. Blackadder]

How does this decision damage anybody?

Bruce
The will of the voting members of the SoA has been thwarted. If there's a clear difference between the merits of the members who were seated (and shouldn't) and the rest of the board, then the SoA might make a decision inferior to the one they otherwise would have made.

If your point is that the election is meaningless, then I can accept that, but then -- why have the election in the first place?

[11pecans]

The will of the voting members of the SoA has been thwarted. If there's a clear difference between the merits of the members who were seated (and shouldn't) and the rest of the board, then the SoA might make a decision inferior to the one they otherwise would have made.

If your point is that the election is meaningless, then I can accept that, but then -- why have the election in the first place?

Who is to say that extra person might not be more qualified than the one who truly won and the additional member makes the board even better?

I am fine with the decision. You people who make this into a tempest in a tea pot are hilarious.

Any person who wants to serve the society in this way is to be applauded. No way I would be giving up my free time to do that and I appreciate those who do.

This was no huge moral dilema or sacrificing of ideals, it is committee of people who volunteer to do things for the good of others, and if they want to have another team member on the board, no one is going to be hurt by that. 2 heads are better than one, n+1 heads are better than n heads. Lets just declare it everyone is a board member year. :lol:

[JMO]

If your point is that the election is meaningless, then I can accept that, but then -- why have the election in the first place?

Perception is everything. If voters feel that the system doesn't reflect what they voted for, some will stop voting. Is that why voter participation is so low? Just a thought.

On the other hand, I have always voted anyway, in spite of the weird practice of reserving some slots for people who don't get the most votes but fit some "under represented" category.

Another perspective http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1140861&postcount=8

[Mary Hardy]

Wow. I am a bit suprised at the strength of feeling here. I am obviously not going to say anything specific about the Board discussion, but I was involved, and I can try to explain the reasoning.

The VP case was fairly simple. The vote ended with a tie (this much has already been disclosed), the rules state only that we must elect 'at least 3' so we exercised our discretion to elect 4.

The regular Board election was a more difficult case, and there was a lot of discussion. The legal advice was that appointing an extra member was perfectly legitimate. Clearly, it's an option that should only be exercised in extreme circumstances. The other main argument was that to tell someone they have been elected, and then tell them they have not, would be such a kick in the teeth, that if we could avoid doing it, we should. The Board put those two arguments together and made the decision.

We were not told, either before or after the decision, which of the declared winners would have moved from 6th place to 7th. We were only told of the candidates who were elected through the lost votes after the discussion was concluded. The debate was not in any way affected by considerations of the personalities involved.

You know, I am sorry that so many people feel we made the wrong decision. I will only emphasize that we really were trying to do the right thing, on a legal and humane basis.

[bdschobel]

At the risk of repeating myself, allow me to make a few points:

1. First, I could not be on the Board conference call last Friday (because I was on a Mediterranean cruise), so I didn't participate in making the decision. Thus, I am not exactly defending myself here.

2. The contractor made the error. The SOA merely discovered it. I don't see why the SOA (or the actuarial profession in general) needs to be embarrassed. Reliance on an experienced contractor is not negligence.

3. The error had no effect on presidential votes. Thank goodness for that!

4. When the Board made its decision about what to do, they had no names in front of them. Nobody knew who would join the Board or who might have to leave the Board -- well, not exactly leave, but not be permitted to join! So no personalities entered into the decision-making. This was not a popularity contest.

5. In the case of VP voting, the revised tally showed a tie for third place. The SOA constitution doesn't say how to handle a tie. The Board decided to declare both people winners. Nobody should complain about that or say that the voters were ignored. The highest vote-getters won! What's the problem? Why is a run-off preferable?

6. In the case of regular Board member voting, the new tally reversed the two people who had come in 6th and 7th. The Board decided to allow both to join the Board, rather than harm the already announced winner by making him a loser. In any case, the top 7 vote-getters won. This is hardly ignoring the will of the voters. It's merely allowing for one extra member for 3 years. And, remember, the Board did not know who these people were when making the decision -- and still don't know who was originally 6th, actually. (And I don't want to know.)

I hope this helps people to understand what was done and the context in which it was done. I recognize that the Board could have chosen another path, but this one is OK with me.

Bruce

[11pecans]

Thanks, Mary. I for one applaud you for your service and think the decisions made were fine.Some people just like to get mad and complain about anything.

[Westley]

The legal advice was that appointing an extra member was perfectly legitimate.

I would like to understand this part especially, because I think it's the only thing that matters. I doubt that anybody here truly is bothered by having an extra member or by having the board decide how to resolve a tie (which should be spelled out, but it's not, so obviously somebody has to make a decision after-the-fact to resolve it).

What bother me is, I don't understand how you reconcile the statement above with:



ARTICLE V- OFFICERS
Section 1. Officers. The Officers of the Society of Actuaries, all of whom shall be Fellows, shall consist of a President, a President-Elect and six Vice-Presidents.

PS. And is there also an issue with the total Board members?
ARTICLE IV - BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Section 1. Composition and Duties of Board of Governors. The management of the Society of Actuaries…shall be vested in a Board of Governors, consisting of the Officers, the two immediate Past-Presidents, and eighteen other members elected from the Fellows….



Additionally, I would be curious as to what other provisions of the Concstitution the Board is free to ignore whenever it's inconvenient for them?

[11pecans]

Additionally, I would be curious as to what other provisions of the Concstitution the Board is free to ignore whenever it's inconvenient for them?

Anytime they want. They can declare Marshall Law and make new rules any time "extreme circumstances" warrant such action.

Perhaps you should reserve your energy for things that matter like ASOP's. Getting your panties in a wad over an additional board member is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Old Timer]

Some people just like to get mad and complain about anything.

Who are you and what have you done with 11pecans?

[fsa]

Bruce wrote "The Board decided to allow both to join the Board, rather than harm the already announced winner by making him a loser."

What harm would the person incur? It happens all the time. One person is declared the winner in an election. A re-count happens, and the other person wins. The winner becomes a loser.

And as one person previously pointed out, this is nothing compared to the "harm" suffered by the group of Part 5(?) candidates who were first told they passed the actuarial exam and then the Society said, " Oops, wrong pass mark was inputted, you really failed".

No one is attributing Machiavellian motives to the Board. However, as Wendt in the Desert forum said, the Board went with the "flexible" interpretation of the constitution. (Similar to when Roosevelt appointed extra Supreme Court judges - although in that case there was a motive.)

[kazh]

And as one person previously pointed out, this is nothing compared to the "harm" suffered by the group of Part 5(?) candidates who were first told they passed the actuarial exam and then the Society said, " Oops, wrong pass mark was inputted, you really failed".

It was Part 4, mid-'80s, when SoA switched software, forgot to update the pass score from the previous sitting. It took me weeks to help persuade one 6* candidate to continue with exams --she's now FSA. One actuarial consultant in town had already moved into his new office, with promotion and bonus in hand, when SoA changed his '6' to a 5.

[BigMactuary,]

Can someone please provide a link to a discussion as robust as this one that actually goes into how the SOA board can serve the profession better or actually has some serious discussion on how to meet the board’s goals?

This is not an election from Napoleon Dynamite where all that matters is who gets to be the class president. The purpose of election is not to find a bunch of people. That is only a start. Election is not the destination, nor is it a journey. It’s the beginning. To what? Oh I stumped you now. You are so obsessed with Pedro winning that you couldn’t see beyond Napoleon’s dance routine.

Can we please for once think outside the box? Actuaries are notorious for being so focused on the task at hand that they lose sight of the bigger picture.

Bottom line is, move on. Criticize the board if it fails to do its job with valid arguments. The "job" is the bottom line. Not the job-doers or their number.

[jazzman2]

Why is this discussion occurring in the "Chat with the Candidates" thread? Are there any candidates, or former candidates, that are chatting?

I would love to hear what the newly elected candidates expect to do in their first 100 days!!

[Plant Food]

Why aren't the vote totals for each candidate released? Most election results have the number of votes each candidate received.

[bdschobel]

The answer to this question is lost in ancient history. The SOA (and maybe even its predecessor organizations) has apparently never released actual vote counts. Most people today believe that vote counts are kept secret (1) to allow all winners to be treated equally and (2) to avoid embarrassing losers. In other words, none of the winners knows that he or she was "more of a winner" than anybody else. And losers aren't humiliated.

Regarding point (2), I personally believe that anybody with the courage to run for office in the first place can stand to see how well or badly he or she performed. And anyone who does really badly with the voters perhaps shouldn't have run in the first place and/or shouldn't run again. This is useful information. But that's just my opinion.

Some actuarial organizations (CAS, for instance) disclose vote counts. Other actuarial organizations (the AAA and the CCA) don't hold competitive elections at all, so there are no vote counts to disclose.

I would have no objection to the SOA changing its practice in this area, but it's not my highest priority, either.

Bruce

[Salzmann]

The answer to this question is lost in ancient history.
Regarding point (2) [releasing vote counts], I personally believe that anybody with the courage to run for office in the first place can stand to see how well or badly he or she performed. And anyone who does really badly with the voters perhaps shouldn't have run in the first place and/or shouldn't run again. This is useful information. But that's just my opinion.

Some actuarial organizations (CAS, for instance) disclose vote counts. Other actuarial organizations (the AAA and the CCA) don't hold competitive elections at all, so there are no vote counts to disclose.
Bruce

Your first point was pretty much the reasoning that the CAS decided to release vote counts- we figured the people running for election were adults and could handle defeat (after all, they took exams, didn't they?).

[kazh]

disclosing counts would help "substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions"

[11pecans]

disclosing counts would help "substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions"

clever quote, but not true in this context

look if anyone cared about these elections then more people would vote, but they don't so it really doesn't matter

[kazh]

I vote. I care. I don't believe you or anybody else.

[Brad Gile]

clever quote, but not true in this context

look if anyone cared about these elections then more people would vote, but they don't so it really doesn't matter

Speak for yourself, son. Some of us do care.

Brad

[bdschobel]

If you care about your profession, then you should care about who leads it. Simple as that. Leadership does make a difference. The examples are legion.

Bruce

[urysohn]

clever quote, but not true in this context

look if anyone cared about these elections then more people would vote, but they don't so it really doesn't matter
Your entire contribution to this thread has been "Who gives a rat's arse who's on the Board, so I support the Board's decision here. And who cares if people even vote or not."
Trolling as usual, I see.

[11pecans]

Your entire contribution to this thread has been "Who gives a rat's arse who's on the Board, so I support the Board's decision here. And who cares if people even vote or not."
Trolling as usual, I see.

No my point was that one more person on the board is no big deal, so yes I do support the board's decision. And then I mentioned that few people even bother to vote. I think the majority of people who run for these positions are qualified, intelligent and well-intentioned people so I'm not too worried about it.

Why can't we just get along? I guess you would have prefered kicking off the board member and then mailing out run off ballots for the VP position?

Look the board has spoken and I respect authority so I accept it and move on too more important things, like ASOPs.

[urysohn]

I guess you would have prefered kicking off the board member and then mailing out run off ballots for the VP position?
Yes.

Look the board has spoken and I respect authority so I accept it and move on too more important things, like ASOPs.
I also accept it and am moving on. This does not preclude voicing displeasure and holding a mini-inquiry on the subject.

[A Student]

I'll also voice my opinion here because the actions bother me.

For the VP decision, I agree with the board in their decision. In the future though, I think there should be put in place a process for breaking ties so that decisions are consistently made. I don't like the interpretation of "at least 3 vp's" as allowing the board to decide AFTER the election that there can be more. If I recall correctly, I was only allowed to vote for 3 vps. If the number of VP's should be changed, then do this BEFORE the election and let the members vote for four (what if I was torn between my third and fourth candidate).

I agree with the consensus that adding the board member seat is flat out wrong (even if it is "legal" it still can be wrong).

As for damage this could cause, suppose board member candidates 6 and 7 have opposing views on topic, including both candidates cancels their votes out, and the popularly elected decision maker is rendered ineffective.

So in a nutshell, either the election matters and this decision was a mistake or the election doesn't matter and the decision was okay.

Sorry to beat a dead horse...

[11pecans]

I'll also voice my opinion here because the actions bother me.

For the VP decision, I agree with the board in their decision. In the future though, I think there should be put in place a process for breaking ties so that decisions are consistently made. I don't like the interpretation of "at least 3 vp's" as allowing the board to decide AFTER the election that there can be more. If I recall correctly, I was only allowed to vote for 3 vps. If the number of VP's should be changed, then do this BEFORE the election and let the members vote for four (what if I was torn between my third and fourth candidate).

I agree with the consensus that adding the board member seat is flat out wrong (even if it is "legal" it still can be wrong).

As for damage this could cause, suppose board member candidates 6 and 7 have opposing views on topic, including both candidates cancels their votes out, and the popularly elected decision maker is rendered ineffective.

So in a nutshell, either the election matters and this decision was a mistake or the election doesn't matter and the decision was okay.

Sorry to beat a dead horse...

oh, ok so make a rule that if the election is on a mon, wed or friday the tie goes to the candidate with the earliest birthday in the year (verified to the second by a notorized birth certificate)

and so what if the two cancel eachoters votes - the popular one might have voted wrong - and Im guessing you need an odd number of votes to keep from ties so adding a vp plus 1 more is perfect.

so in a nutshell, your analysis is flawed, but keep studying, maybe one day when you are smarter you can run for office

[bdschobel]

The Board is supposed to have 28 members. For 2 years it will have 30 members, then drop to 29 members for 1 additional year. But the whole question of tie votes is almost totally hypothetical. Nearly every Board vote is overwhelmingly one direction or the other. Close votes are quite rare. I may have seen two or three in my 4 years on the Board, and none of those was a tie.

Just today, somebody mentioned one potential risk that I had not considered: Any Board action during the next 3 years may be challengeable on the grounds that the Board itself was not properly constituted. This risk is probably quite small, but it isn't zero.

Still, I have no problem with what the Board decided to do in this admittedly bad situation.

Bruce

[urysohn]

Just today, somebody mentioned one potential risk that I had not considered: Any Board action during the next 3 years may be challengeable on the grounds that the Board itself was not properly constituted. This risk is probably quite small, but it isn't zero.

I would hope and assume that this possibility came up during the deliberations and that you were not aware of it because of your absense. Else, what need to consult the attorney (i.e. "are we a legally recognized Board")?