All you need to know about SOA leadership

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by tbakos

Here I disagree with you Chuck - see bolded sentence above. If you or I (assuming we tweeted) could have links to our tweets on the SoA website, then you might have a point - or, if any member's tweets could be linked to from the SoA website. That might be evidence that the SoA doesn't endorse any particular individual.

But, the SoA did not sponsor the predecessor to the Actuarial Outpost and wanted no such direct connection with any blog because it did not want to be associated with unfiltered posts that might appear there.

Isn't PrezMike2010 doing exactly what the SoA detests? Why doesn't the SoA post a link to the Actuarial Outpost on its website? Doesn't that history imply that the SoA considers what PrezMike2010 says to be officially an SoA communication?

So we all thought, upon reading that tweet, that the official position of the SOA is that Blago is a sympathetic figure? Does anybody really think that they should get there official pronouncements of SOA policy from Twitter? Anybody's twitter regardless of how they navigate there?

It's TWITTER, man! Just because it is called "tweeting" and "twittering" is enough for me not to worry too much about it.

Read the second sentence in context. My point is that there are more important fish to fry (like you and Bruce not being in the loop about the election QA). IMO, it looks a little silly to be getting in a lather about what the Prez is twittering. I suppose you could argue that the Prez also looks a little silly twittering such a message, but for what point? It seems like a silly distraction from real issues. I also remember people who got in a lather when Bruce made his infamous "dribbling lips" comment too. I wouldn't have chosen those words either, but I still respect Bruce anyway.

I agree about the inconsistency of "filtering" of messages though, which whether you agree with it or not, is a pointless effort on the internet. I am all for a link to the Outpost after letting the lawyers come up with whatever disclaimer they feel the need to make.

Just to be picky though... I did see at least one Outpost link and I am pretty sure I have attended official SOA webcasts where the Outpost was referenced:

http://www.soa.org/search/search-res...put=xml_no_dtd

Chuck

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by campbell

I'm going to be kind, and just assume that some people are not all up-to-date with this new-fangled technology stuff.

Tee-hee. You need to understand that this kindness streak of yours will get you nowhere!

[EddieC]

Originally Posted by Kenshiro

I'm more offended by his name on twitter than by what he said. PrezMike2010? Really?

hey, we're not going to sell the CERA designation to the world if we can't communicate with the kidz on teh interwebz using their speak.

[tbakos]

I guess there are some links to the Actuarial Outpost. I didn't look deeply enough.

I don't think this is trivial as you do. McLaughlin is the President of the SoA. He tweets as the President of the SoA. What he tweets does reflect on the SoA - even if it isn't linked to on the SoA home page with a "follow us".

Let's look back just a bit. When McLaughlin seconded Bykerk's motion to remove Bruce as President Elect of the Academy wasn't that (at least nominally) because of something Bruce was merely alleged to have done (i.e. defame Sanford) while an SoA Board member? Was that substantively different?

Now we have the President of the SoA in an SoA endorsed communication expressing sympathetic thoughts for Blago who is under federal indictment (24 counts) and being tried in a federal court. It's one thing to tell us all in 140 characters what cereals he likes or a bad joke - that's just silly.

Does he have a position on building a mosque in lower Manhattan? Or, Social Security retirement age? Or, national health insurance? Or, public plan financing? Or, briefs vs. boxers? He probably does and he could tell us what those views are via an SoA Presidential tweet. But should he?

[EddieC]

I always assumed he was a briefs guy, but thanks for the mental picture.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by tbakos

I guess there are some links to the Actuarial Outpost. I didn't look deeply enough.

I don't think this is trivial as you do. McLaughlin is the President of the SoA. He tweets as the President of the SoA. What he tweets does reflect on the SoA - even if it isn't linked to on the SoA home page with a "follow us".

Let's look back just a bit. When McLaughlin seconded Bykerk's motion to remove Bruce as President Elect of the Academy wasn't that (at least nominally) because of something Bruce was merely alleged to have done (i.e. defame Sanford) while an SoA Board member? Was that substantively different?

Now we have the President of the SoA in an SoA endorsed communication expressing sympathetic thoughts for Blago who is under federal indictment (24 counts) and being tried in a federal court. It's one thing to tell us all in 140 characters what cereals he likes or a bad joke - that's just silly.

Does he have a position on building a mosque in lower Manhattan? Or, Social Security retirement age? Or, national health insurance? Or, public plan financing? Or, briefs vs. boxers? He probably does and he could tell us what those views are via an SoA Presidential tweet. But should he?

I'd say that you don't justify "bad" behaviour by pointing to other bad behaviour. It was, IMO and from what I know, wrong what was done to Bruce. That for me is not sufficient justification for doing the same to someone else (which seems to be what is implied - correct me if I am wrong).

(Although to be inconsistent, I am all for a W Sox pitcher plunking Delmon Young with a 95mph fastball between the shoulder blades - and I'd be willing to tweet that!)

Bruce was the first to say that he did not and would not leave his personal opinions at the doorstep when he became President. One of the concerns I had about running for BOD was that I too have strong opinions about issues and did not want to have to dampen my personal opinions because I could be viewed as representing an organization. It's one reason why I dislike the cloaking rule about votes/positions on the BOD.

So yes, I would have no problem with Mike or anyone else expressing personal opinions about SS retirement age, national health, etc, even if they are different from mine - I just want to have the same right. I think more actuaries should be expressing opinions - it bugs me that everybody (doctors, lawyers, politicians, pundits, celebrities, etc) are on all the news shows spouting their opinions on NHC - Why never an actuary who actually UNDERSTANDS how insurance works? I would not want him to express those opinions as representing mine (or our organization - unless they duly were - which would be AAA not SOA in that case to be "duly"), but I just don't think anybody believes a Twitter message does that. Now you could argue that Mike would be taking undue advantage of his "bully pulpit" to express his own views - but that's the spoils of war. It bugs me that people listen to Michael Moore and other celebs too, but they have the right to express there opinions too.

But it is silly to even equate any of that with this. I suppose that if Mike made some seriously derogatory tweet, say pulling a anti-semetic Mel Gibson tweet or something, I would have to seriously question his character/integrity/judgment/sobriety at that point. But even then, my first thought would be - did Mel hijack his twitter? (That sounds dirty!).

But he didn't do anything like that or anything like a serious comment about mosques, etc. He made an innocuous off the cuff comment about Blago, something we probably all have said or done. Was his SOA tweet a good choice? I'd say probably not, but for me the nature of twittering makes it just not that important.

[ambushed]

Is there any precedent for having someone other than the current SOA President sign the certificate and be in the photo, or can such an arrangement be made? Toronto is only 2 weeks away.

[bdschobel]

Sorry, no precedent for that.

On the bright side, Don Segal, the current president-elect, takes over in October. He's terrific!

Bruce

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by Chuck

Bruce was the first to say that he did not and would not leave his personal opinions at the doorstep when he became President. One of the concerns I had about running for BOD was that I too have strong opinions about issues and did not want to have to dampen my personal opinions because I could be viewed as representing an organization. It's one reason why I dislike the cloaking rule about votes/positions on the BOD.

I like to think that I was very, very clear about distinguishing my personal views from those of the organization. Mike does that much less well, if at all.

The "cloaking rule" is one of the most Orwellian aspects of the current regime. It's truly offensive to anyone with a brain. I manage to work around it in the following way: If I vote Yes, then I'm silent. If I vote No, I demand that my dissenting vote be recorded in the minutes, as is my right under Illinois law (which must rankle McLaughlin, but too bad). I seldom abstain. So, anybody reading the minutes can tell how I voted. It's nice. Tom Bakos does the same thing.

Will you also do that, Chuck? And will you demand that the cloaking rule be repealed, in the interests of transparency? Don't all the members deserve to know how all Board members voted, not just the ones who go to pains to make their votes known, as I do?

I'm making a point here. It's not enough to sit passively and say, "Gee, I don't like that very much." The people who vote for you -- and who elected you, if you should be elected -- want you to actually get things done! I voted for Obama because I wanted "change." I haven't seen any yet -- or at least not the kind of change that I wanted and expected. So I don't plan to vote for him again, unless I have no choice (because the Republicans run someone like Sarah Palin, for instance).

What exactly do you plan to do?

Bruce

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by Chuck

I'd say that you don't justify "bad" behaviour by pointing to other bad behaviour. It was, IMO and from what I know, wrong what was done to Bruce. That for me is not sufficient justification for doing the same to someone else (which seems to be what is implied - correct me if I am wrong).

It's one reason why I dislike the cloaking rule about votes/positions on the BOD.

So yes, I would have no problem with Mike or anyone else expressing personal opinions about SS retirement age, national health, etc, even if they are different from mine - I just want to have the same right.

I suppose that if Mike made some seriously derogatory tweet, say pulling a anti-semetic Mel Gibson tweet or something, I would have to seriously question his character/integrity/judgment/sobriety at that point. But even then, my first thought would be - did Mel hijack his twitter? (That sounds dirty!).

But he didn't do anything like that or anything like a serious comment about mosques, etc. He made an innocuous off the cuff comment about Blago, something we probably all have said or done. Was his SOA tweet a good choice? I'd say probably not, but for me the nature of twittering makes it just not that important.

Well, we may have beaten this to death but, I have no objection to Mike or anyone expressing a personal opinion in a personal way - even on Blago. That's not what happened. I agree it is not an earth shaking problem. It is, as you said, not a good choice.

I'm not sure what bad behavior justification you are referring to. I was merely using an example we could all relate too.

Good for you on being for open Board meetings. We've been discussing that for months on the Board. Seems like it is a really hard subject requiring all kinds of study and extensive Task Force meetings. You will, probably get an opportunity to express a point of view on it (if you win, of course). But, even if you don't you should be able to express a point of view. You could send in a request to amend the Bylaws to make it clear that Board meetings are open to members. Go to:
http://www.bakosenterprises.com/SoAB...ticle%20V.html
to do that.

I don't twitter. It is one of the many things I don't have time to do. So many other things are more important to me.