So…AMA this year? I know at least one of you candidates is reading this!
c’mon…
1 Like
Any CAS-lovers running this year?
1 Like
Bueller
bump
CS ask Kesha how I should vote on the proposed bylaw changes.
1 Like
Man we gotta bring in the wall with John King cuz’ this thread ain’t got no views
I thought this would be in the Actuarial Politics section. Well, I finally found it as I was starting one up - let’s get to the really important details.
I know, I’m just an ACAS so I don’t know all of the answers, but “more than 800” would point to something like 801, 805, 810, … maybe 816 or more. Saying “more than 816” implies that it’s not 816, but maybe not as many as 817, so … 816 1/4? 816 7/8? 816 15/32?
Anyway, 816. In 11 days. Last year we were at “nearly 700” which had us on pace for just under 2,000 and we ended up at 1,636 [22% of those eligible]. I’d guess we’ll end up around 1,750 votes on this pace, still under 25%. Updates as the CAS sends out more pleas for more votes.
Re: Constitution and Bylaws Amendments to Streamline Governance - I don’t have an opinion, as an ACAS I can’t vote on it. Given recent experience, if the CAS wants it I feel inclined to vote against it, but I don’t see additional powers being granted or new offices / positions being created that don’t need member approval. I’m probably OK with it, but again … as an ACAS, I don’t get to vote on it.
Re: President and Board - I don’t care. I don’t personally know any of them, I’m sure they’re all lovely people. Whoever will rein in some of the stuff that’s been going on recently re: sharp focus on unintended bias, expansion of staff w/o member input, and so on - that’s who would have my vote. I’d really like further increased transparency into the exam process and put and end to this constant shifting of the pass mark and inevitable throwing of the candidate pool under the bus, along with a de-emphasis on we’re going to be predictive modelers, we’re going to be data scientists, we’re going to be data architects, we’re going to be programmers, we’re going to be everything and anything that vaguely smells of math and computers - but that’s asking way too much.
2 Likes
That’s more or less my thinking, although I have the added layer of not wishing to engage with the CAS, beyond the bare minimum to maintain my credentials, until they quit scheduling major meetings/seminars in jurisdictions where it’s hazardous for some of our members to attend.
I’m also career ACAS, so my opinion on the bylaws change doesn’t matter…but the proposal seems plausible to me.
1 Like
Seems like that would be a topic for one of the 113 “unintentional bias” discussions the CAS wants to have.
More than 1058. Not 1059, though. Something like 1058.1, or 1058.3, or 1058 47/64.
That means they’re on pace for … [does the actuarials] … 1704 votes. Or 1705, depending on where between 1058 and 1059 the total vote count stood when that was sent. That will probably goose up with late voters, so 1750 still looks like a reasonable pick.
Not a lot of votes cast since a week ago. About … [does the actuarials] … 31 votes a day. Means we’re on pace for 1541 votes. Or, 1,542 if about 1276.2 votes have been cast - which, that would be more than 1276. I’m not sure we’ll top last year’s total at this rate.
That’s still lower than the average municipal election in a non-Presidential or non-gubernatorial year. Maybe the CAS could at some point investigate the reason(s) for low member engagement. Maybe even try to address one or two of those concerns and … wait, sorry - that’s just crazy talk.
3 Likes
Well I blame the candidates for voter apathy.
Did anyone of them show up here to do an AMA? Nope.
Even though I specifically requested it.
I’d recommend a more modern form of communication but am not seeing any meaningful election discussion on Reddit of discord either. Reddit at least had a ke$ha reference
1 Like