The SOA leadership has reached a new low.

[This Guy, FCAS]

Given the unprecedented event, I figured some followup was needed to clarify on what occurred in an exceptionally interesting interview.

A SOA nominating committee member, Mary Hardy, (Waterloo professor, never took a SOA exam, member of Canadian FEM Task force, previously served as chief examiner in UK exemption system), denied Tom Bakos from being placed on the ballot for SOA President-elect. As you will see below, Mary started off the interview saying she had to discuss with Tom "the elephant in the room - FEM".

Some background info on Mr. Bakos, a FSA (through SOA examinations) since 1972, over 40 years of work experience, served terms as a member of the board of directors and SOA vice president.

Here is a link to Tom's post describing the interview.

Here is a quote from that link:

Originally Posted by Tom Bakos

My extreme views are revealed by my interview with the Chair (Cynthia Miller) and the Vice Chair (Mary Hardy) of the Nominating Committee. I pointed out (factually) that Mary did nearly all of the questioning which did not center on the responses I had already provided to written questions but on what Mary called “the elephant in the room”.

Actually, there were two elephants discussed.

E1: We talked about my position on FEM (the Flexible Education Method proposal) which I was a strong voice against. Mary was reasonably for it given her work for a university and because of what she felt were potential conflicts, she recused herself from voting on the issue. I commend her for that. However, my position against was not likely to endear me to her of favorably influence her opinion of me as a PE candidate.

E2: We talked about my position that Board meetings should be open and that Board members ought to be able disclose how they personally voted and the vote counts ought to be released to members (not who voted which way). Mary expressed the view that doing that would intimidate Board members and adversely affect the way they voted. I said that if Board members could not stand that kind of heat, they should not run for the Board. It seems to me that voting members cannot exercise their vote wisely unless they know what candidates believe.

That was the discussion I posted. I expressed the view (mine) that a requirement that one must impress two NC members with whom one has basic philosophical differences as the only route to the ballot is fraught with problems, unfairness, and difficult choices. For example, I could have lied and gone along – would have had to start much earlier than this though.

Now here is the followup interview with Mr. Bakos.

Originally Posted by This Guy, FCAS

Did Mary bring up FEM or did you?

Originally Posted by Tom Bakos

She did. Began by saying we couldn’t ignore the elephant in the room – which was FEM. So we didn’t. There was no way I was going to bring up FEM and hope to stay on her good side!

I was kind of surprised because I thought FEM had been decided (by the SoA Board). I indicated that I was evidently right (or, at least, with the majority of the SoA Board) since the Board did terminate FEM consideration at our Boston Board meeting in 2010.

TomB

Originally Posted by This Guy, FCAS

She actually said, “the elephant in the room” ?

Originally Posted by Tom Bakos

Yup. Her words exactly.

For "context", Cecil Bykerk ran for the SOA presidency 4 times.

What is the unprecedented event?

[wooHoo]

I thought this was covered a while ago.

[ElDucky]

Originally Posted by wooHoo

I thought this was covered a while ago.

It was, so, they are still near the same low. Not letting someone on a ballot because he/she might be elected; I can't think of the best word for that, but it's certainly not a cromulent thing to do.

[tommie frazier]

not sure how bykerk adds "context". i may need to double check that this thread wasn't started by lincoln electric.

[bdschobel]

"Context" might not be the best choice of word, but it's at least interesting that Bykerk ran for president-elect an unprecedented FOUR times -- losing in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (to me!), before finally winning (just barely) in 2007. Apparently, the powers that be were determined to see him as president, come hell or high water. It didn't matter how many times the voting members rejected him.

Just a few years later, the SOA has become so fussy that Tom Bakos couldn't even get on the ballot in 2010 or 2011, despite being eminently and rather obviously qualified to run for president-elect (his term as VP having ended in 2010).

There are lessons here. Bykerk is a long-time FEM advocate; Bakos (like me) is a long-time FEM opponent.

Bruce

[KSBurke]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

"Context" might not be the best choice of word, but it's at least interesting that Bykerk ran for president-elect an unprecedented FOUR times -- losing in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (to me!), before finally winning (just barely) in 2007. Apparently, the powers that be were determined to see him as president, come hell or high water. It didn't matter how many times the voting members rejected him.

Just a few years later, the SOA has become so fussy that Tom Bakos couldn't even get on the ballot in 2010 or 2011, despite being eminently and rather obviously qualified to run for president-elect (his term as VP having ended in 2010).

There are lessons here. Bykerk is a long-time FEM advocate; Bakos (like me) is a long-time FEM opponent.

Bruce

I get the feeling that there's a civil service mentality among long-time volunteers in the sense that being president is thought of as the natural progression of a volunteer career path, i.e. it's someone's turn to be president. Is there any truth to that or am I way off base?

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by KSBurke

I get the feeling that there's a civil service mentality among long-time volunteers in the sense that being president is thought of as the natural progression of a volunteer career path, i.e. it's someone's turn to be president. Is there any truth to that or am I way off base?

I believe you are mostly right. Obviously, not everyone who volunteers can expect to cap their volunteer career with presidential officer status. Only some of many could possibly have that opportunity.

However, one needs only to look at the SoA Board Policy to see that the position of PE (or any position on the Board) seems to be thought to be by those in power more a personal "honor" than an obligation or duty to serve the profession.

Another point, the symbolism of background (e.g., life, health, pension, international, etc.) is given more weight than leadership, ability, desire, etc. The SoA keeps track of the distribution of its board by subject matter area thinking that proportional distribution on the board somehow better serves the profession than members' combined wisdom expressed through their ballots. The SoA still uses "reserved seats" by which the Nominating Committee can select a "winner" who received a low vote count merely because that person was in a preferred class of candidates.

I'm a good example of how the manipulation of the election process works in the SoA. If I had been on the ballot and lost - then I would know that my points of view and direction for the SoA were not in the mainstream. But, having been rejected by two members of a nine member Nominating Committee only tells me something I already knew - they don't like me or my positions and won't allow the members to vote either for or against me or my positions.

That is just wrong!

Originally Posted by tbakos

Another point, the symbolism of background (e.g., life, health, pension, international, etc.) is given more weight than leadership, ability, desire, etc.

I don't think that's just symbolism. I think the different areas most likely have legitimately different interests and needs, and it's good that they be represented on the board. The CAS reserves 15 spots (of 18) for Casualty actuaries. (the 12 elected members and the past, present, and future elected presidents.)

The CAS also makes some effort to balance insurance company vs. consulting, US vs. Canada, and some other dimensions, although they do that by trying to nominate a diverse slate, not by reserving seats. But it's common for voting CAS members to look at those dimensions and the makeup of the non-vacating board and vote for "diversity". Candidates often mention it in their self-descriptions.

[KSBurke]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I don't think that's just symbolism. I think the different areas most likely have legitimately different interests and needs, and it's good that they be represented on the board. The CAS reserves 15 spots (of 18) for Casualty actuaries. (the 12 elected members and the past, present, and future elected presidents.)

The CAS also makes some effort to balance insurance company vs. consulting, US vs. Canada, and some other dimensions, although they do that by trying to nominate a diverse slate, not by reserving seats. But it's common for voting CAS members to look at those dimensions and the makeup of the non-vacating board and vote for "diversity". Candidates often mention it in their self-descriptions.

The make-up of CAS board committees are another matter entirely. The Centennial Steering, Discipline, Risk Management, Leadership Development, Nominating, and Strategic Planning Committees are overloaded with consultants.