Click here to find out who Proposed and Seconded the Motion for Bruce's removal

[Harry]

So who was it that argued this had nothing to do with FEM?

[PhildeAssociate]

Originally Posted by Harry

So who was it that argued this had nothing to do with FEM?

Dear Harry,

Just about everyone that is pro-FEM. Then about half the people anti-FEM because they wouldn't believe such a thing was possible.

I think Teddy KGB was put on ignore by some people because he suggested that the IAA was involved.

Regards,

PhildeAssociate

[remilard]

Originally Posted by Harry

So who was it that argued this had nothing to do with FEM?

American Psycho and Wag, the Dog among others.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by SharksFan08

I like you bolding "Bykerk cited my opposition to a controversial proposal under consideration at the Society of Actuaries, of which he is the President, raising an apparent conflict of interest" as if it is factual and damning, and not just an allegation from Bruce's suit.

Are you really saying that I would submit perjured testimony to a Federal Court, when the events I'm describing were witnessed by something like 30 other people? Do you think I'm that stupid? Did you notice that the AAA has not challenged the accuracy of my declaration, even though they had the opportunity?

Bruce

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by SharksFan08

You know me very well, I do like that! I also like the willingness to dismiss the two judges who oversaw the arbitration with Sarah Sanford, but cite the comment of this judge to bolster a point.

No judges oversaw the Sanford arbitration. There were three arbitrators, and their report was filed with the court, not approved or affirmed by the court. Filing the report of a private arbitration is unusual in the first place -- and totally unnecessary. All that the court needed to know was that the case had been settled by means of arbitration.

Bruce

[SharksFan08]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Are you really saying that I would submit perjured testimony to a Federal Court, when the events I'm describing were witnessed by something like 30 other people? Do you think I'm that stupid? Did you notice that the AAA has not challenged the accuracy of my declaration, even though they had the opportunity?

Bruce

No. I'm not suggesting that those people didn't introduce and second the motion. I'm suggesting that when you say "Bykerk cited my opposition," it might mean he was against the way you handled your opposition and not simply the fact that you were opposed.

For the record, I think how the AAA has handled the whole thing is wrong, and I have no problem with your attempt to clear your name and regain the position. I just think this an obnoxious string of posts by Teddy KGB.

[SharksFan08]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

No judges oversaw the Sanford arbitration. There were three arbitrators, and their report was filed with the court, not approved or affirmed by the court. Filing the report of a private arbitration is unusual in the first place -- and totally unnecessary. All that the court needed to know was that the case had been settled by means of arbitration.

Bruce

My apologies. I read elsewhere that was the case. Thanks for the clarification.

[Actuary321]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Are you really saying that I would submit perjured testimony to a Federal Court, when the events I'm describing were witnessed by something like 30 other people? Do you think I'm that stupid? Did you notice that the AAA has not challenged the accuracy of my declaration, even though they had the opportunity?

Bruce

And in addition this information will come out when the AAA board approves and releases the minutes to there "open" meeting of 8/5. So again, why would Bruce have any inclination to even fudge the facts?

[quandaryus]

So what all of this comes down to is:

Bruce and the SOA were involved in a lawsuit which was resolved in binding arbitration, resulting in the SOA paying damages. A letter was written by Dave Hartman and signed by many AAA past presidents requesting Bruce's suspension or resignation as President-Elect of the AAA. An AAA meeting was called to discuss this.

At this meeting, Cecil Bykerk and Mike McLaughlin, SOA president and president-elect and members of the SOA Board, took it upon themselves to motion and second for Bruce to be removed as President-Elect. As motivation, they cited (among other things) the dispute over FEM and unhappiness with Bruce's expressed opposition to it.

This despite the facts that (1) no successful attempt has been made to remove Bruce from the SOA Board, where he currently sits; (2) the purported purpose of the meeting was to discuss a matter which Bykerk and McLaughlin, as members of the SOA Board, were personally involved in and should not have been discussing; (3) Bruce's opposition to FEM is strongly echoed by the profession itself, and has nothing at all to do with governance of the AAA.

As the judge said, this whole affair is quite "disgusting" and certainly does not inspire confidence in the leadership of either the SOA or the AAA.

[The Mad Hatter]

Like I said before, some people cannot distinguish the method of opposition from the opposition itself. The idea that Cecil, Mike and 19 past AAA Presidents et al are so tied into FEM that they conspired to take Bruce down is nonsense. It's Bruce's behavior. And it is consistent with a pattern that shows why he is not fit to run AAA. Like Exactuary pointed out, it's as if everyone around here forgot about the Dan Anderson thing. Bruce showed his true colors then. We now know that it is was not isolated.