SOA Board Adopts Nominations Process Task Force Recommendations

[actuary21c]

Originally Posted by campbell

So, basically, FSAs have no right to nominate.

It's nice to have it clearly put.

My reading of your General Counsel's letter ("one nomination is all that is required for consideration by the [Nominating] Committee") is that FSAs have a right to nominate, but that right:

a) is of no value once a person has already been nominated (since only one nomination is required)
and
b) only ensures that the person nominated gets considered by the Nominations Committee, and not that the person's name gets put on the ballot paper.

As I've said before, I would agree that this is probably not what most actuaries and members of the public around the world would reasonably expect from an open and democratic professional organisation. My personal opinion is that such a situation is unlikely to help the reputation of actuaries internationally. So the current situation seems to be a sorry one - the reputation of actuaries can be enhanced (or otherwise) by whether the status quo is simply accepted, or, instead, whether action is taken to improve things.

[Dumbdumb]

Originally Posted by secondlife

Guess NC and board got tired of answering your questions?

More like got tired of ignoring them. The last two letters posted don't seem like there's been much 'answering' going on.

I really find it hard to believe that a counsel wrote that last letter, or that he did so with a straight face. We can't tell the members the criteria we use to select their leadership. Wow.

[Chuck]

The Committee has, at your request, already given you feedback explaining
why it chose not to include your name on the ballot for President-Elect. This feedback was provided to you on a personal, confidential basis, to help you understand the Committee's decision.

Tom - I am curious as to whether you agree that they did this? In other words, did they complete the sentence..."We did not select you because..."?

Was there a conversation? Did they ask for/require it to be confidential? Was there anything close to a specific explanation (that you would obviously disagree with) or was it just generalities that they compare this and that?

What would be interesting is if the nominating committee had to select nominees based on qualifications without any specific names/identities associated with it. Or whether they agree that you qualify based on all quantifiable measures, but not on other measures (eg nominating committee members general opinions).

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by Dumbdumb

They did address it. They indicated in their response (the last one Tom linked to) that they've already detailed to Tom the specific reasons. I don't know if Tom made those reasons public. But I gather they have been explicitly stated. I wouldn't be surprised if the reasons were personal enough that Tom prefers to keep the info confidentail - though it seems he doesn't think the reasons give were good enough.

No, they really didn't.

Nancy Behrens on the Nominating Committee and the person who called me stated that my vision was not good enough and I objected to the process. I asked her how many PE candidates there were and she hesitated and said: "i don't think I'm allowed to tell you that." She, clearly, was not prepared for the next question if she told me there were only two PE candidates instead of the typical and expected three.

I have previously posted my PE Questionnaire here and encourage you to review it.

There is no legitimate reason for excluding me as a PE candidate. I am clearly qualified. There is no personal reason I shirk from providing. There has been no explicit reasoning provided to me.

The reason is most likely, the current cabal which has appointed the NC doesn't want me on the Board, particularly as President Elect since that would, they expect, disrupt their plans.

I would understand and not question if I were a candidate and didn't win because someone else got more votes. I do object, however, when the Nominating Committee supported by a rather incompetent lawyer insuists it has the right to "select" candidates. Selecting sounds ominously like voting and that is a right only voting members have.

If the SoA leadership were leading the organization towards doom and financial ruin, how would you get rid of them? Would you try to nominate new leaders who could fix the problem? Well, that is exactly what you aren't allowed to do. And, you can't find out what current leadership is doing becasue they won't tell you - confidentiality, you know.

Want to attend a Board meeting? Got to get permission to do that.

Want to ask a question at the upcomming SoA Interactive Leadership Forum? Try that at: membercomms@soa.org. You will, if the past is any indication, only be allowed to ask questions that are approved.

It is hard to reconcile all that with Independence Day - isn't it?

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by Chuck

Tom - I am curious as to whether you agree that they did this? In other words, did they complete the sentence..."We did not select you because..."?

Was there a conversation? Did they ask for/require it to be confidential? Was there anything close to a specific explanation (that you would obviously disagree with) or was it just generalities that they compare this and that?

What would be interesting is if the nominating committee had to select nominees based on qualifications without any specific names/identities associated with it. Or whether they agree that you qualify based on all quantifiable measures, but not on other measures (eg nominating committee members general opinions).

As previously disclosed, I had a discussion with Nancy Behrens who is a member and called for the NC.

She provided a reason that no rational person would accept: (1) the NC didn't like my vision and (2) I objected to the process. I have posted my PE Questionnaire here. It is clear that the NC has no subjective decision making authority with respect to a candidates vision for the SoA. That would normally be up to the voters.

I asked Nancy if the NC was aware of Brad Smith's merger/GI Track vision when they nominated him. The members certainly weren't. She didn't know she said since she wasn't on the NC then.

While I certainly do object to the current process, I was participating in it. As I did, by the way, in 2008 when the NC then found me qualified to run as a VP candidate - an election I won. I wonder why I was qualified in 2008 but two years later in 2010 (and then in 2011 and 2012) not qualified. So far I have no answer to that.

When I asked Nancy how many PE candidates there were, she said "I don;t think I can give you that information" - or something very much like that. Now, I know she was obviously concerned about the fact that there were only two candidates. She really didn't want to explain why I wasn't the expected third candidate on the ballot.

So, no, they didn't answer the question.

No confidentiality was required and none given by me. I have waived NC confidentiality regarding their decision on me.

Confidentiality in this is not required to protect me. It is required to protect them and keep you all in the dark.

[Dumbdumb]

I recently applied for membership to a private hunt camp. Membership requires payment of some fees plus a majority vote by the membership. There's an executive committee that receives requests for membership and decides if it'll take it to the membership for a vote.

I'm confident that the majority (if not all) of the membership knew me reasonably well and would vote me in. I believe most of the executive committee knows me and would vote me in. The president however, is a complete dink. No big deal, we're all adults - ignore his idiosyncracies and get along. Yet when i requested membership (and recommended by the past president) the current president blocked me, wouldn't even take it to a vote to the membership. He emailed me and suggested that I needed to spend another year or two getting to know the members even better.

Or, as I had it described to me more succinctly by the past president of the club, "DumbDumb you've just been s**** the wrong d****". Apparently so.

That doesn't help, but I can sure feel your pain Tom. In my case, I couldn't be bothered sitting around seeking favor so I found an easier and in the end, better, option. I think your best route is still to keep pounding away using the membership as a bludgeon to get things changed. Frankly anything other than one voice one vote for leadership results in the nonsense you're seeing at the SOA. There needs to be an immediate route for membership to throw some tea in the harbor.

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by Dumbdumb

I recently applied for membership to a private hunt camp. Membership requires payment of some fees plus a majority vote by the membership. There's an executive committee that receives requests for membership and decides if it'll take it to the membership for a vote.

I'm confident that the majority (if not all) of the membership knew me reasonably well and would vote me in. I believe most of the executive committee knows me and would vote me in. The president however, is a complete dink. No big deal, we're all adults - ignore his idiosyncracies and get along. Yet when i requested membership (and recommended by the past president) the current president blocked me, wouldn't even take it to a vote to the membership. He emailed me and suggested that I needed to spend another year or two getting to know the members even better.

Or, as I had it described to me more succinctly by the past president of the club, "DumbDumb you've just been s**** the wrong d****". Apparently so.

That doesn't help, but I can sure feel your pain Tom. In my case, I couldn't be bothered sitting around seeking favor so I found an easier and in the end, better, option. I think your best route is still to keep pounding away using the membership as a bludgeon to get things changed. Frankly anything other than one voice one vote for leadership results in the nonsense you're seeing at the SOA. There needs to be an immediate route for membership to throw some tea in the harbor.

That's called a blackball - we used them in my fraternity as part of the admission process many years ago. Two were required.

Maybe a blackball is OK in a very small social group where it is important for all to get along. But, the SoA is 20,000 strong - and we are not a social club.

This should not be thought of as my pain. I rather enjoy a challenge and will continue with it in what I hope will be more effective ways in the future. The struggle here is to bring this issue to the attention of all of our FSA members. They should know, particularly those near the beginning of what they hope to be a long and successful career, that this is more their issue than it is mine.

The rule put in place by the ruling elite is that the only road to leadership of the SoA is through the Nominating Committee put in place by the ruling elite. That is, clearly, not healthy. How will you ever be able to throw the bums out?

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by tbakos

This should not be thought of as my pain. I rather enjoy a challenge and will continue with it in what I hope will be more effective ways in the future. The struggle here is to bring this issue to the attention of all of our FSA members. They should know, particularly those near the beginning of what they hope to be a long and successful career, that this is more their issue than it is mine.

The fact that the ruling cabal has deprived the SOA of your leadership -- at least for now, and they'd clearly like it to be forever -- is painful to me. The current leaders seem to be driving the car over a cliff. Anyone who feels differently is free to debate the matter. I will cite (1) the "merger" idea sprung on everybody at the moment Brad Smith became president and (2) the GI track that is clearly an act of war against the CAS, which has done nothing to deserve such attention. Maybe when the cabal resurrects FEM, people will start getting excited about changing leaders. Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the SOA.

Bruce

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

The fact that the ruling cabal has deprived the SOA of your leadership -- at least for now, and they'd clearly like it to be forever -- is painful to me. The current leaders seem to be driving the car over a cliff. Anyone who feels differently is free to debate the matter. I will cite (1) the "merger" idea sprung on everybody at the moment Brad Smith became president and (2) the GI track that is clearly an act of war against the CAS, which has done nothing to deserve such attention. Maybe when the cabal resurrects FEM, people will start getting excited about changing leaders. Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the SOA.

Bruce

A reminder ---

I asked Nancy Behrens during my discussion with her as a representative of the Nominating Committee whether or not Brad Smith's "vision" to merge the CAS into the SoA or, absent that, create a GI Track to drive them out of business was mentioned by Brad during his NC vetting process in 2011.

She didn't know. She wasn't there.

I bet it wasn't. Or, even worse, it was!

If you like "leaders" like Brad Smith* continually put forward, then remain quiet - because that is what you will be getting. They are spending your momey, you know!


*I think of Brad Smith as the Joe Biden of the actuarial profession.

[campbell]

Related:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...d.php?t=243258

And to remind, I did go back to check on what Brad Smith said at the time of his election, and nothing about a merger of the U.S. societies was mentioned then.

Should be interested to see if we get any statements on that matter from Board, VP, or P-E candidates. It is a bit current, and relevant to what members would like to know, I'd think.