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

Browse Open Actuarial Jobs

Life  Health  Casualty  Pension  Entry Level  All Jobs  Salaries


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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-18-2018, 06:16 PM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 38,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basso View Post
Question: don't changes to the standards get published for public comment before they are adopted? It seems to me the best argument related to diffusing anti-trust concerns is that (assuming there is public comment prior to adoption) the group that met behind closed doors cannot implement changes to any standards without public scrutiny.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. At any rate, at a recent CAS event, one of the ASB board members encouraged anyone interested in the process to attend a meeting. Something tells me that if I wrote to the AAA, said I was interested in the process and would like to attend a meeting where they are discussing something relevant to the CAS, could I attend, I'd likely get the okay. No way to tell for sure though, since I am nowhere near any meeting site.
They have always done so in the past. Whether they plan to change that, too, seems important. But i tend to agree that so long as the overall process is open, I don't think I need every hour of it to be open.

Oh, and I just got a letter from Karen Smith this week
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-18-2018, 06:30 PM
KarenNsmith KarenNsmith is offline
SOA CCA AAA ASPPA
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Great State of Texas
Studying for ASPPA CPC
College: UT 1990
Posts: 23
Default Total discretion

Thanks for your post Basso. Under the new policy, the ASB has discretion to adopt standards with no public scrutiny. There is typically an exposure period, but the ASB is not required to make changes based upon that input. They can just include a statement in the final adopted standard that they do not agree with the comment. And now the final discussion and vote is behind closed doors.

I would have guessed that I would have bern admitted to observe meetings up and until I was denied access. You canít have a test baed upon peopleís motives because you never know peoplesí motives. The Academy may attribute nefarious motives to you and you will have no way to appeal.

This action was taken by the Academy board - I truly donít know to what extent the ASB requested or protested this change. If you can go to the meetings (you can afford the travel cost, can invest the time and are allowed by the ASB to attend), you absolutely should attend. I just think anyone willing to follow the rules about not being disruptive should be afforded the same opportunity.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-23-2018, 04:19 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.actuary.org/content/upda...paign=thisweek

Quote:

Update On Petition To Change Rules Governing Participation Of Guests At Academy Committee Meetings
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Sept. 21, 2018

As discussed in the August Actuarial Update, some Academy members have been asked by Ms. Karen Smith to sign a petition in support of a membership vote on changing the Academy’s rules governing the participation of guests in meetings of the Actuarial Standards Board and of the Academy’s various committees.

The Academy Board found that the current policy strikes the right balance between openness and the need for candid and robust discussion, along with the need to maintain basic decorum and prevent conflicts of interest. Indeed, since the adoption of the current policy, guests have continued to attend and participate in committee meetings. Ms. Smith presented her petition on September 13. The Academy has reviewed it and determined the petition as it currently stands is insufficient to trigger a membership vote for three principal reasons:

Not Enough Signatures: Article XV of the Academy’s Bylaws requires a written request of not less than 3 percent of the Academy’s membership. As of September 13 (the date the petition was submitted), 3 percent of the membership was 602 members. But of the 648 names submitted, 92 of the email addresses do not appear in the Academy’s membership database. One other individual is clearly not an Academy member and yet another is deceased. Four others withdrew their signatures after familiarizing themselves with the facts. That leaves, at most, 550 potentially valid proponents, well short of the number needed.
Names Not Linked to the Proposal: Those of you who are familiar with hard-copy petitions know that the subject of the petition appears prominently adjacent to the signatures. But in this case, for many of the names listed, the petition asserts support for a vote without any evidence that the individual, in fact, supports the proposal. It is impossible to accept, simply on faith, that these individuals have expressed their support.
Lack of Clarity in the Proposal Itself: The Academy has seen various iterations of the proposal to which the petition relates, but there is nothing linking the submitted signatures to specific versions of the proposal. It would have been helpful if Ms. Smith had incorporated the exact language of her proposal with every solicitation she made for support. So the Academy cannot determine, exactly, what is in fact being requested and whether all the persons supporting the petition actually support the same thing.

These shortcomings have been communicated to Ms. Smith with a note that she is free to attempt to correct them and resubmit her proposal. The Academy hopes she does not. And, if any members are asked to sign the petition, please familiarize yourself with the facts before you make a decision. There is clear evidence that the revised guest policy is working well; observers are welcome and are attending meetings. Continued agitation on this subject is a distraction from other important work and is a needless waste of energy and resources.

The Academy will continue to protect and preserve the open and transparent standard-setting process and the quality and integrity of the standards it produces. If you have any questions, please email knowthefacts@actuary.org.

For more information, go here.
last bit links here: https://www.actuary.org/Updated_Boar...eetings_Policy
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-24-2018, 08:28 AM
r. mutt's Avatar
r. mutt r. mutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Extreme fever swamps of the left
Posts: 10,183
Default

#hardball
__________________
Bruce
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-24-2018, 08:35 AM
Chilango's Avatar
Chilango Chilango is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Washington, DC
College: Indiana University
Posts: 231
Default

I responded to the email from Karen Smith multiple times that I am not a member.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-24-2018, 10:32 AM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29,693
Default

The bit about the email addresses is fishy though... I mean, I have three email addresses that I regularly use, and I easily could have accidentally used one that is different from the one the Academy has on file.

Furthermore, although my work email has not changed during my tenure at my current job, at a past job I think I had *FIVE* different valid work email addresses that all dumped into the same inbox such that it was near impossible which valid address the email was sent to. Something like:

Amy Actuary, ASA, MAAA at ABC Insurance Company

aactuary@abcinsco.com
amyactuary@abcinsco.com
amy_actuary@abcinsurance.com
amy_actuary@abcinsuranceco.com
amy_actuary@abcparentgroup.com

Every few years they changed their "default" format, but they never got rid of the old versions so that outsiders with our old email addresses could continue to contact us. Even if I knew full well that Academy emails were going to my work address, I very easily could have forgotten which email format was the latest & greatest at the time I became an Academy member (well after I started working there as a 1-exam student).

If I signed the petition as amyactuary@abcinsco.com but the Academy has amy_actuary@abcinsurance.com on file then throwing out the signature on the basis that the email isn't on file is pretty bogus. I hope they weren't throwing out valid petition signers on that basis and would certainly encourage Ms. Smith to follow up on that.

Beyond that, if she didn't have enough signatures then she didn't have enough signatures.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-24-2018, 10:53 AM
KarenNsmith KarenNsmith is offline
SOA CCA AAA ASPPA
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Great State of Texas
Studying for ASPPA CPC
College: UT 1990
Posts: 23
Default

We have submitted 674 requests for a membership vote. Only 602 MAAA requests are required. Before submitting them, we attempted to verify that the requests were from a MAAA. Even allowing for some errant MAAA requests, we are well over 602 MAAA requests. And, we continue to get additional requests weekly if not daily...How many will it take? 700? 800? 1000? I don't know.

The rules that the Academy is applying are arbitrary and the article they posted on their site is one-sided (to be kind)... Lots of people have multiple email addresses - at least a personal and a work email. But it is not uncommon for people to have 2 or 3 email aliases at work and multiple personal email addresses. I did not realize how common this was until we tried to honor the request of people to be removed from our distribution list. We would remove the requested email and a few weeks or months later get a second request from the same person at a different email address.

The Academy concluded their letter to me stating that "It is long past time for Ms. Smith to stop wasting her resources and imposing costs on the Academy." Why would I be wasting my time unless the Academy has decided that in no event will they put the Sunshine Amendment to a vote? Hmmm... The Academy is going to a lot of trouble to not allow a membership vote - what are they afraid of?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-24-2018, 11:41 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

This is why I use my personal email address for all my actuarial stuff.

Because it hasn't changed since I joined the AAA or SOA.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-24-2018, 11:53 AM
Knoath Knoath is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 48
Default

550 is not "well short of " 602, especially if the number is still growing. Or do they think that the members are not very good with numbers?

Last edited by Knoath; 09-24-2018 at 04:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-24-2018, 02:24 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
The bit about the email addresses is fishy though... I mean, I have three email addresses that I regularly use, and I easily could have accidentally used one that is different from the one the Academy has on file.

Furthermore, although my work email has not changed during my tenure at my current job, at a past job I think I had *FIVE* different valid work email addresses that all dumped into the same inbox such that it was near impossible which valid address the email was sent to. Something like:

Amy Actuary, ASA, MAAA at ABC Insurance Company

aactuary@abcinsco.com
amyactuary@abcinsco.com
amy_actuary@abcinsurance.com
amy_actuary@abcinsuranceco.com
amy_actuary@abcparentgroup.com

Every few years they changed their "default" format, but they never got rid of the old versions so that outsiders with our old email addresses could continue to contact us. Even if I knew full well that Academy emails were going to my work address, I very easily could have forgotten which email format was the latest & greatest at the time I became an Academy member (well after I started working there as a 1-exam student).

If I signed the petition as amyactuary@abcinsco.com but the Academy has amy_actuary@abcinsurance.com on file then throwing out the signature on the basis that the email isn't on file is pretty bogus. I hope they weren't throwing out valid petition signers on that basis and would certainly encourage Ms. Smith to follow up on that.

Beyond that, if she didn't have enough signatures then she didn't have enough signatures.
I am not an AAA member, but it sounds to me like the AAA should have been more diligent at determining which AAA members signed the petition, with respect to the e-mail address issue. At an absolute minimum, they should send an e-mail to the e-mail address listed, saying that it does not match the e-mail address on file of an AAA member, and that if they are AAA members should should contact the office to resolve the discrepancy. In addition, in the case of names which apparently match AAA members, but where the e-mail address does not match AAA records, they should send an e-mail to the address in their records and inquire say that if they wish to sign an AAA petition they need to use their AAA-recorded e-mail address.

Those would be prudent actions for an organization which is trying to identify AAA members who attempted to sign the petition.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
academy, asb, blackhole, coq, sunrise, sunset, sunshine

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.15816 seconds with 10 queries