I agree with this 100%. In my opinion, the CAS board seems very removed from the membership. There have been a number of large changes (from seeming out of no where) recommended by the board that have little support from the membership, and that’s worrying.
Unfortunately, most of the candidates who are focused on improving transparency also seem like bigots, and I’m not going to vote for bigots.
I voted for Belden, Lederer, Llaguno, and Rohde.
I got a surprising letter from the CAS today. Does anyone know what
…
Any conversations regarding CAS elections should remain focused on the issues. In order to fully discuss issues, mentioning or referring to other candidates is not necessary.The CAS was made aware that a candidate did not follow this guideline in a social media post late last week…
refers to?
I looked at this thread wondering the same thing, but like they said it’s a guideline but not a rule so it’s not all that meaningful.
I’m all for DEI, but who are the geniuses that came up with the name Diversity Exam Reimbursement Program?
lololol
I’ll PM you.
Actually, I can’t PM you because you have it turned off. Message me and I’ll fill you in.
huh, thanks for letting me know. that’s a mistake – I’ll see if I can figure out how to fix that.
I think it’s because your profile is hidden. It hides the message button as well.
Forget which candidate but i think one of them mentioned in the semi viral LinkedIn post (which was telling people not to vote for the WLTC-endorsed candidates) saying who the WLTC had endorsed, and perhaps (I forget) who else they were voting for themself. It was nothing that i thought seemed egregious at the time.
Yeah, that really sounds like a nothingburger that was blown out of proportion.
Just voted - somehow the skypunch link ended up in my spam folder so was tough to find.
Moderating:
I would just like to remind posters, and especially our new contributor, @Wltc4CAS , or some of the rules of this forum
In particular, posts that imply that trans women are men, or that trans men are women, and posts that intentionally or persistently misgender people are not allowed on this site. Such posts will be deleted, and posters who make those posts may be booted from threads, restricted from discussing gender, or banned from the site.
Racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry are also forbidden on this site.
but FYI, this board is not the CAS, and the owners of this board have chosen to take a stand on those matters. And as a guest of a privately owned message board, I wanted you to understand the choices of the owners of this board.
Closing this topic while mods, Serena and I discuss this thread and the existence of wlc on this forum.
At the request of the owners, I have banned WLTC and deleted their posts. I also deleted most of the replies, but left a couple of substantive replies and refutations. Moderators may make further deletions after additional discussion.
Re-opening the topic to everyone else as the election is still active.
I understand the stance taken by mods as this is a privately owned board, but does nobody else think that refusing to engage at all in discussion/debate is part of the reason that they created their platform? I want to be clear that I do not share their views, but from what I had seen so far, nothing they said was in bad faith or malicious before they were banned, why not have discussion and then choose to ban based upon whether or not they were acting maliciously/in bad faith? Back to my first point, I think that labeling them racist and banning them without first engaging in discussion is exactly what led to the groups existence and just drives the wedge further. Is it not healthy to have discussion, particularly when there’s heaps of papers/literature surrounding discrimination in insurance pricing that can be cited?
