Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Search Actuarial Jobs by State @ DWSimpson.com:
AL AK AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA
ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NH NJ NM NY NV NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-08-2009, 03:41 AM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Do you pro-Bruce AOers who don't know Bruce except through his postings and maybe because you met him once when he was at his charming best at your fellowship induction realize how many people you must assume are evil or deluded in order to defend him?

You have to believe that 19 Ex-Prez's were out to get him. That's two decades of the most senior volunteers (your actuarial brethren) at the AAA.

You have to believe that the 17 AAA directors (all of whom know Bruce much better than you do, many for years) were out to get him. For what? FEM. Forget it. This isn't about FEM. Bruce manipulated FEM to get AOers riled because Bruce knew what the AAA board was about to do. He bumped the thread on 8/2. Can't you folks suspect Bruce instead of 19 people here and 17 other people here?

You have to believe that the court that convicted him of very serious and very violent crimes was not as credible as one 10-12 years later which saw him polished up and eager to charm. He can be charming, like at FSA inductions, public appearances and before NJ judges listening to one sided pleas by hired gun expungiating lawyers. The second court did not hear the testimony of the victim and may not have seen the pictures of her wounds.

You have to believe that the Cook County arbitrators, supervised by two judges, were out to get him and enrich Sarah Sanford. I am told she can be charming too, when she wants to be.

Look at what Hartman actually wrote, or what you can see of it, cherry picked by bakosenterprises.com. It is not blackmail. It is the sort of pressure that is applied in corporations and in political situations and even in such institutions as the AAA every day. Tom Bakos files a guidance request with the ABCD asking whether they think Hartman's actions are blackmail. Tom turns it into a question, but it is really an accusation. AOers certainly have seen that trick in spades and diamond and clubs. That document may be sent to the ABCD without defaming Hartman even if it turns out that no blackmail occurred.

But then Tom publishes it to the world on his website and by links from the AO. Has it occurred to you that he may have defamed Hartman. If Tom cannot prove that Hartman blackmailed Schobel, then his allegations (no judge is fooled by framing allegations as questions) of blackmail are defamatory.

Yep the whole world is out to get Bruce.

After years of bullying nasty behavior (including an extraordiary lack of self control when he is angry), Bruce has been found out by those who know him very well (board members and other actuarial colleagues). I suggest that AOers who are not trolls (lRoy Hobbs is not a troll; neither are many others; you know who you are) step back, look at how many people would have to be going after Bruce to make this all happen. It is not reasonable. Bruce has been guileful on the AO for years (with minor exceptions like Redacted) and has won a lot of people with his transparency claims. But now apply the principals of the control cycle. Review what you have come to believe over the last few years. Ask yourself how much you really have been able to learn about Bruce through his postings. Many of his postings in tough situations (asserted by Jeremy Gold) run up to the edge of an outright lie and stop. Update, use the control cycle concept. In the last several weeks you have seen what many respectable people have made of Bruce's performance over the last several years. You have also heard negative things from trolls. But some of those apparent trolls were proven to be telling the truth. Maybe they should be seen as the whistleblowers. They are not powerful. Whistleblowers are not powerful. The letter that praises Bruce as a whistleblower is written by several powerful people backing up one of their own very powerful people.

The old boys network at the AAA? You think it is a bunch of regular directors and special directors. Well some of them actually are hoping to get into the center of the old boys network. The center is Parks and Bluhm and Lehman and several VPs. These people have been "electing" each other for years through the AAA and the CCA. Only at the CAS and the SOA are the leaders really elected (although some can be dissatisfied about that process too).

This has been an extraordinary four weeks and the inability of the AAA to communicate with its members is shameful. But it is not very new. The AAA has been unwilling to communicate anything controversial for years. It is built into their governance and their excessive number of committees and way stations that any communication must get through. The lessons we have learned about AAA governance are very real. We do need better elections, more transparency, better governance and communications, or maybe we don't even need the AAA at all. But Bruce wasn't giving that to you. He didn't advocate member elected officers. He just wanted to be an officer. He was horsetrading with his cronies and lining up his next PE job, but his bad behavior in recent years finally caught up with him. Special directors discovered that they were not alone in having been screwed by Bruce. "Oh he screwed you too? Why didn't you do anything about it?" "I couldn't. He was too well connected. It seemed easier to give in." But when they discovered they were not alone they were ready to act and act they have.

If I were not an alt, Bruce could sue me for defamation for this post. You can sue anybody for anything in this world. But I would prevail because there is not an untruth in it. Having said that, I can hardly wait for axeman Bakos to point to some small fact I have accidentally gotten wrong.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-08-2009, 03:43 AM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Actuarialsuck View Post
After all this, some members of the AAA look a lot worse than Bruce, should we be expecting their withdrawal from the actuarial societies?
Some cleansing is in order. Sometimes cleansing is referred to as purging. We could use some purging. And some real elective democracy.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-08-2009, 03:56 AM
UCSDKID UCSDKID is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactuary View Post
Do you pro-Bruce AOers who don't know Bruce except through his postings and maybe because you met him once when he was at his charming best at your fellowship induction realize how many people you must assume are evil or deluded in order to defend him?
I have never met Bruce or have any personal ties to the matter. It may indeed be that Bruce is unfit to be the president of AAA and that the board had just cause to remove him. I don't have a stance on any of that as I do not know all of the underlying details enough to make an informed decision....

HOWEVER... after reading the court transcripts it definitely appears that the board basically threw away the rule book (bylaws and IL law) in order to remove him. The process that was taken, whether justified or not, was unfair and against the law. It is that process that I take issue with. In my opinion the ends don't always justify the means and the board does not have the right to throw out the rule book just to get the end result they so desire. If Bruce was really that unfit, they should have had no problem in removing in a way that was fair and followed the letter of the law.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-08-2009, 04:18 AM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UCSDKID View Post
I have never met Bruce or have any personal ties to the matter. It may indeed be that Bruce is unfit to be the president of AAA and that the board had just cause to remove him. I don't have a stance on any of that as I do not know all of the underlying details enough to make an informed decision....

HOWEVER... after reading the court transcripts it definitely appears that the board basically threw away the rule book (bylaws and IL law) in order to remove him. The process that was taken, whether justified or not, was unfair and against the law. It is that process that I take issue with. In my opinion the ends don't always justify the means and the board does not have the right to throw out the rule book just to get the end result they so desire. If Bruce was really that unfit, they should have had no problem in removing in a way that was fair and followed the letter of the law.
Actually the judge agrees with me and I think with you. The AAA should have announced its removal action on August 6th instead of that silly vacancy message on 8/27. I think the judge's jaw is gaping when he looks at that. The AAA President should have sent Bruce an official termination letter on August 6. The defense that Bruce was in the room seems lame.

But I don't think that the process leading up to August 5 was all that bad. It is important to remember that the process was being managed by John Parks who didn't want Bruce removed. That is in the transcript. I think Parks did the best he could and didn't get everything right. But courts can be very techy on details or ignore small correctable errors when the substance is right. I think we must wait and see.

Two further points about the run up to the meeting:

1) The Minneapolis venue had been chosen months earlier for the Executive Committee (what I have called the power center of the old boys network) to meet in person. This group favored Bruce and had already cleared their calendars for Minneapolis.

2) After calling the meeting (and probably not doing an appropriate jon of stating its purpose -- but here is a case where the judge can take notice of the fact that Bruce has no doubt that the purpose of the meeting was to see if the board was going to keep him from becoming Prez), Parks had a fiduciary obligation to make the meeting as accessible as he could to as many people as possible. After first trying to encourage face-to-face attendance and participation, he had to reverse himself on phone ins to achieve the goal of enfranchising as many of the 29 directors as possible. Not perfect, but not sneaky and not with evil intentions. Substantively ok, and this too can be acknowledged by a judge who notes that John Parks was on Bruce's side.

Finally, I believe that the better read of the Illinois law is clearly stated by Downs who points out that officers elected by boards can be removed by those boards in accordance with 108.55. The directorship is a secondary aspect of the officership. It is ex-officio, by virtue of the office itself. When he loses the office he loses the director's seat. The Illinois law could have been written better. 108.50 is troubling. It says that all directors have the same rights. AAA's lawyer addresses this briefly. One of the points he makes I find persuasive. He says that the rights, duties and responsibilities of directors may refer to their director role -- like voting, attending board meetings, making and second motions, and so on, and may not include the "right" not to be removed except by 108.35. I can see that the judge might not like this as much as I do. Because the Illinois law has some parts that fit together imperfectly, the question is does the judge put the burden of that ambiguity on the side of the plaintiff or on the side of the defense? I could make arguments either way. The statute really should be interpreted against its own writer but the judge in DC cannot find the Illinois legislature guilty of instilling uncertainty into a messy process. "I find for the palintiff and the defendant, the State of Illinois will bear all costs."
__________________
An exact actuary

Last edited by exactuary; 09-08-2009 at 04:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-08-2009, 04:43 AM
asdfasdf's Avatar
asdfasdf asdfasdf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: My perception of reality
Studying for nication
Posts: 20,069
Default

The OP seemed to have omitted a link to the actual article, which can be found here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/bu...08actuary.html I dont' have time to catch up now but will return, with luck the thread will still be here. And yes, the OP posting that scanned document seems questionable, many things at this point seem questionable.
__________________
Your own conciousness blinds you to the true existence of all things external to it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-08-2009, 05:07 AM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default Hartman and Bruce - first exchange of e-mails that I have access to

Note the very different tones and cc lists. The first is critical but cordial. And it takes a substantially professional approach to a dispute. It probably took some time to write. Most of us try to spend some time composing things for our customers and colleagues and would probably take an extra effot when asking them to do something they did not want to do.

{I can guess that a phone call or prior e-mails had preceded this. But it is the earliest I have.}

Quote:
From: Dave Hartman
To: Bruce Schobel
Sent: Thu Jun 11 10:36:41 2009
Subject: Your Resignation?

Dear Bruce,

I was very disappointed with you when I read the attached arbitrator's award. What I focus on is your defamation of the character of Sarah Sanford. Defamation of character is unprofessional and does not uphold the honor of the office of President-Elect of the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA), nor does it uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession. I am very surprised that you did not immediately resign your position as President-Elect of the AAA.

I am asking you to resign your position as President-Elect of the AAA. Will you? If yes, effective when?

Dave
The second is blasted back at Hartman by Bruce 75 minutes later. Bruce has an anger management problem that most AOers never see. What follows is a crack in that smooth veneer.

Quote:
From: Bruce Schobel <mailto:BSchobel@soa.org>
To: dghartman@comcast.net
Cc: johnpparks@gmail.com ; downs@actuary.org ; chunt@umich.edu ; OAK cecil OFFICE <mailto:oakoffice1@cox.net> ; Mike McLaughlin (Deloitte) <mailto:mikemclaughlin@deloitte.com> ; Gregory Heidrich <mailto:GHeidrich@soa.org> ; Stacy Lin <mailto:SLin@soa.org> ; mrenetzky@lockelord.com ; kmoran@lockelord.com
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Your Resignation?

Dave,

I defamed no one. The accusation that I did so was untrue; the SOA and I strongly and appropriately defended ourselves; and the arbitrators' decision is unsupported by the evidence, which I have seen and you have not. You can never see the evidence, which is protected by multiple protective orders. Anyway, this matter is finished and will not be reopened -- or even discussed -- by any of the parties. How did you get a copy of the award, anyway? I don't recall that you were a party to the case. Maybe I missed that.

You have no legitimate interest in this matter and should stay out of it. You only make yourself look foolish taking a position on a subject about which you know so very little. Talk to someone with knowledge of the case. It might be helpful.

Please be very careful about violating the Code of Professional Conduct. I would hate to see you do that.

Bruce
You will recognize the "foolish" quote from the Times article. You can also see unwarrented sarcasm (Maybe I missed that), borderline rudeness (stay out of it), smartass attitude (the foolish sentence) and a clear threat (in the reference to the Code of Professional Conduct). This is what some call Bruce's style weaknesses. But some AOers may recognize it as barely suppressed rage. It reads like an angry AO post. Maybe that's the problem. Hmmm...

The "you can never see the evidence ... " is a wishful fantasy. It seems that the NY Times just waltzed into the Court House and said "what've you got on Sanford v. Schobel and the SOA. How smart is that? For Bruce to say the arbitrators were wrong and I am right and you'll never see the evidence that the arbitrators ruled against me on. And it turns out that an AOer found the whole docket online in a matter of minutes after AP posted the title of the action. Apparently you can all go into a room in the court house and see all the evidence you like. The old SOA motto suggests substituting facts for impressions (or whatever) which means reading the original rather than a Bakos spin job. Remember that Bruce knows all that evidence and that Bakos is effectively working for Bruce.

As Steven Colbert says "Get to know a district." How about "Get to know Bruce and all the evidence you want."

I can sort of imagine how Bruce felt when he discovered that Cook Fortress was open for business and TRANSPARENT inquiry. Long live transparency. The real stuff.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-08-2009, 06:29 AM
asdfasdf's Avatar
asdfasdf asdfasdf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: My perception of reality
Studying for nication
Posts: 20,069
Default

Multi Quote has failed me IP, if you're so sure of everything, why not use a real name?

Maybe Bruce has anger issues, I don't know, what I do know is if the issue was so cut and dry it shouldn't have been hard to get a 2/3rd's vote of directors to out him. If it was so cut and dry, then the counter letter shouldn't have had two past presidents (the most recent one's) sign it.

I noticed you referenced "her" in one of your posts, so you would then purport to know what the expunged offense is? Or are you just BS'ing to try to make your case look better.

Re Bruce's reply to Hartman's email, I am completely on his side, if someone was being drip fed confidential information and trying to railroad me out of my position I would likely respond in kind.

Based on your posting style, in particular in the various deleted threads, where you've sounded like little more than a hyperactive child, I'm much more inclined to feel that you, whomever you may be, are the one with anger issues.
__________________
Your own conciousness blinds you to the true existence of all things external to it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-08-2009, 06:41 AM
Lucy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdfasdf View Post
. . . if someone was being drip fed confidential information . . .
It seems the information wasn't confidential after all. The immediate parties had agreed not to discuss it, but it is publicly available to anyone who goes looking for it at the court house.

And it is a little odd that someone who has rallied so fiercely for "transparency" has tried so very hard to keep these publicly available details hidden. I'm less surprised that the ordinarily secretive AAA board tried to keep stuff hidden, but what on earth were they thinking in ousting Bruce and then not announcing anything? What on earth did they think would come of that?

This whole situation is sad.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-08-2009, 06:58 AM
asdfasdf's Avatar
asdfasdf asdfasdf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: My perception of reality
Studying for nication
Posts: 20,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy View Post
It seems the information wasn't confidential after all. The immediate parties had agreed not to discuss it, but it is publicly available to anyone who goes looking for it at the court house.

And it is a little odd that someone who has rallied so fiercely for "transparency" has tried so very hard to keep these publicly available details hidden. I'm less surprised that the ordinarily secretive AAA board tried to keep stuff hidden, but what on earth were they thinking in ousting Bruce and then not announcing anything? What on earth did they think would come of that?

This whole situation is sad.
I may be wrong, my earlier understanding was that the only way to get the trial transcripts from the Sanford case was to go to the court, and then ask for docket xxxxxx-as, and the only people who knew the docket number were those involved in the suit, and as part of the settlement they all agreed not to talk about it. But, I could be wrong.

I should stop before I start theorizing on things that get this thread deleted, but, if as IP claims Bruce is such a monster, why couldn't they get a 2/3rd's majority? It just doesn't add up. Re openness, it may be the case that Bruce tried to keep the result of the Sanford suit more secret then necessary, but, if I were in his shoes I wouldn't publicize having lost that case, particularly if I didn't feel the outcome was just.
__________________
Your own conciousness blinds you to the true existence of all things external to it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-08-2009, 07:11 AM
RichieGB RichieGB is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Post View Post
One can win a battle but lose the war.

It appears that Bruce is willing to burn the AAA if he cannot be president one year. That seems to be small minded thinking. Which is why I posed the question to Bruce. If he chooses not to answer it, fine. But I, and many others, would like to know why he is choosing this course of action. Because it looks like Captain Ahab is off hunting Moby Dick.
Step aside, who cares if you were wronged, do what regular politicians do and "take one for the better" of a broken system.

Are you as much of a b---h in real life as you're asking Bruce to be?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aaa, bruce schobel

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.46726 seconds with 10 queries