2021 Elections

Who voting

I will be voting!

Board slate seems to have at least three with strong international presence. I like Roosevelt for sure.

What are your thoughts on the ByLaws amendment?

1 Like

I was also impressed with the slate of board candidates. Picking whatever number will be hard. Roosevelt I have met a number of times in prior volunteer settings. I always liked him, so great that he can be the leader.

By Laws…not sure and have not dug in.

I don’t get to vote for at least 2 more years, but I’m interested in how people feel about the by-law proposal given that I got an e-mail overnight from Bob Daino (FCAS, 1978) speaking out against it.

Oh, there’s a website for it? Let’s check it out.

Oh, OK. And then down the page a little:

And under one of the posts:

Is it really too much to ask that in 2021, we have a courteous, respectful discussion on something and not resort to mindless name-calling?

the linked to blog made me think I was for the amendment if this guy was against it.

Came here just to make sure this was being addressed. Man.

I’m actually against the amendment despite the fact that there seems to be a dispicable website opposing it.

But I came here to see if anyone had lobbied for any of the board candidates. I know fewer of them than in most previous years, and I would be interested in others’ opinions.

Although, this being the 11th hour, maybe I’ll just go by what they said in their statements.

What are your thoughts on this? I read through the proposed bylaws and it looks like they’re pulling a lot of detail out and replacing it with “in accordance with procedures by the Board of Directors.” Basically moving power from voting Fellows to the Board. Am I reading that right? Any other implications?

At least the minutes from all the past Board of Directors meetings are available on the … oh, wait - they’re not now.

I know we had an AO group that requested those minutes up to a certain point. Does someone still have those, and is anyone requesting minutes from meetings since then?

1 Like

understand that thinking.

I did not vote for it. (abstained, but I believe that counts the same as a NO). i did not research it much and have not been as active in CAS the last 10 years as I was the 10 prior. so i missed the memo where something big was needed in order to do…whatever.

1 Like

I started my career in the SoA, and even after switching to the CAS, did a lot of volunteer work on joint committees. The SoA has been staff-driven since I started this gig. It has also consistently been less responsive to members, candidates, and volunteers, more concerned with the growth of the SoA, and less concerned with broader issues of using actuarial science for the public good, and the accessibility of our tools to all.

I credit that to the volunteer-led model. My interactions with SoA staff were all about the SoA. In contrast, I had lunch with the then-president of the CAS shortly after the SoA announced its GI track, and she said, “I don’t know how to feel. Maybe this will make casualty actuarial science more available to to a wider audience.” I have never heard anything like that from the SoA.

I may be wrong as to the cause. And I’ve watched the CAS become more and more like the SoA over the years, despite remaining volunteer-led. But I am deeply dubious of the value (to anything outside the corporate existence and growth of the CAS) of switching to a staff-led model, and I don’t want to vote for an amendment to support that.

So I voted no.


I’d also like to say that I am enthusiastic about the CAS’s recent increase in attention to matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am certain that we are a healthier professional organization if our members have a broader range of backgrounds and experience. And I think it helps us fulfill our mandate to promote rates and other actuarial work that is not unfairly discriminatory.

I know that the elected actuaries who guide and execute the policy of the CAS are strongly in favor of improving our diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I don’t think this is an area that will be much affected by whether we end up with a staff-led or volunteer-led society.


I’m guessing you’re opposed to the creation of this position last month?

1 Like

I came to this thread at the literal 11th hour to look for this, too. Since I didn’t give myself enough time to read all their statements, I think I’m just going to vote for the 2 candidates I sort of know, both of whom I respect, & leave the rest blank.

I’m taking this approach, too. I haven’t looked closely enough at the change to outright oppose it, but I don’t really understand the need for it to support it, either.


I am. But that’s a done deal, and I’m a realist. Mostly I’m just sad at the direction the CAS is moving in. Perhaps it’s inevitable given their growth, but it makes me sad.


Were I able to vote, I think I’d cast an active vote against. Not that I think the CAS is still in the position that it can be a purely volunteer-driven organization (I don’t), but I don’t know that the suggested approach is the right one. I also think that of the problems the CAS currently faces, some of them are self-inflicted and it refuses to address those.

Long rant omitted, but I go back to Steve Armstrong’s comments in the September/October 2020 issue of the Actuarial Review. There’s questions in there that need to be answered, because they have long-term ramifications for the CAS as a whole. If “what do we want for candidates” revolves around actuarial science first, IMO that’s got a serious cost that no one is considering. Throw in that we apparently are now looking for unicorns and are supposed to be a master of all trades remotely related to math, and I question the entire direction of the CAS. I have no idea how moving to the proposed model magically fixes everything.


Voted 11th hour and 55th minute - IMO annoying that they put in a deadline of 5pm EDT. Why not just make it midnight? Do the CAS staff members need to start tallying the ballots in the evening so that they can get the results in by Labor Day or something? I even set aside time on my calendar for this but work happens.

Candidates basically say the same things about getting more diversity in the profession and expanding the profession outside of insurance. I think the videos were a great addition to the process - hearing their stump speech is a much better use of our time than having to read through different versions of the same old stuff. I trust that any of them would do fine as board members, especially with RoMo as Prez. At the end of the day it usually comes down to who they know. Of the 4 board members I selected, 3 of them were ones I had met, including one who chaired a committee I’d previously served on, another who did consulting work for our company, and one who interviewed me for a job (despite the fact that he didn’t hire me). The fourth I thought had an impressive background and video.

Balloting for the 2021 CAS election closed on August 31, 2021.

Roosevelt Mosley has been elected President-Elect.

Justin Brenden, Kathy Olcese, Yvonne Palm, and Jason Russ have been elected to the Board of Directors.

According to the election procedures approved by the Board, all vote counts are released to the membership. These follow:

Roosevelt Mosley 2,317

Kathy Olcese 1,367
Yvonne Palm 1,338
Jason Russ 1,246
Justin Brenden 1,231
Tetteh Otuteye 1,187
Kathleen Ores Walsh 1,117
Alejandro Ortega 1,016
Daniel Fernandez 868

In addition, as previously announced, while a majority of CAS Fellows voted in favor of proposed changes to the CAS Constitution and Bylaws to streamline the governance of the Society, the proposal did not achieve the necessary threshold required for approval. Constitution and Bylaws changes require an affirmative vote from 10% of the Fellows or two-thirds of the Fellows voting, whichever is greater. The vote counts on the Bylaws proposal are as follows:

Approve: 1,358 (61.1%)
Do Not Approve: 864 (38.9%)

A total of 2,924 eligible voters cast ballots (37.9%), as compared to 1,928 eligible voters last year (33.3%). Among eligible Five-Year Associates, 26.7% cast ballots, and 40.7% of Fellows cast ballots.

1 Like

Note: if you were against the reform proposal but didn’t vote “no” on it, it helped the “yes” vote get to the percentage needed regardless of whether the threshold was “majority of 10% of Fellows [and Associates]” or “2/3rds of Fellows [and Associates] voting.”

Always make sure you vote your intention, don’t leave it to chance.

1 Like

3 of the 4 candidates I chose were elected, and the other one didn’t miss by much. Mazel Tov to those who won. Bylaw change didn’t miss by much.