I think they fielded one of the candidates, too. I suck at remembering names, so I’m not going to post the wrong name right now, but there is one guy who seems to be running on a “block DEI” platform.
And Michael Larsen, who i think is running because he wants to get more modeling on the syllabus, also sounds like he’s actively opposed to DEI. The other six all sound, from their answers, like they recognize “it’s table stakes”, to quote one of them.
I’m not voting this year. I feel lied to by last years board candidates that said they were interested in DEI and wanting to move the society forward then taking a massive step backwards this year with a meeting in Florida.
I’m basically disengaging from all things CAS until they actually start to show up and do things to make things better instead of just talking about it.
I think the work they are doing about recognizing systemic bias is useful. They are pushing that pretty hard, and it’s an area where actuaries are well-positioned to address and mitigate the problem. I also think they are doing okay work to diversify the profession.
That was one of the questions to the candidates (specifically, having a meeting in Florida) and several of the candidates gave, imo, thoughtful responses.
The two big “controversies” in CAS-land are DEI (with a whole organization, welovethecas, to oppose it) and the recent change to a more staff-driven model, which probably makes sense as the organization grows, but the implementation has been pretty disruptive (and not in a good way, more in a "let’s all stagnate and do nothing while we stress about it way) to the exam process.
You ain’t wrong on that. Who in heck books a national org conference in Florida in today’s environment? Easiest thing they could do is move it (I get the admin would be horrible, but the decision should be a no brainer).
Yeah, I have a good friend who lives in Florida who has invited me to visit. I’m sure I’d love his garden. But I’m not sure I even feel safe visiting Florida right now. Yeah, I’m cis, but maybe not cis enough?
Still, it’s hugely expensive to move an event that’s already been scheduled. The proof of the pudding, to me, is where the next several events end up.
That’s fair… personally I’d be keen for the CAS board (or prospective members) to come out explicitly that we’re not trying to imperialistically spread internationally (beyond USA/Canada). I’m all for helping the Chinese (etc.) P&C society(ies) to develop, etc. but it seems silly to me (in a very imperialistic way) that we should be trying to compete with a domestic Chinese P&C society for membership.
But, alas, if you spend loads of time working for the CAS I imagine growing internationally is exciting and part of what makes people want to do it.
Heck, I don’t see “growth” as part of the CAS mandate. I think its role ought to be to support casualty actuarial science worldwide, to support casualty actuaries, especially their members, and to credential casualty actuaries so that insurers, regulators, etc., can find appropriate talent.
But once you have people beholden to an organization (and that includes the board as well as the staff) they want to take care of the organization, and make it bigger, stronger, etc. I agree with you that we would do better to partner with China and India to improve their own societies, but I think the issue of “we must grow” is larger than just “internationally”.
The last time the CAS had a big meeting in Florida, I took a little flack for giving the CAS the benefit of the doubt, expressing the opinion that it’s not very effective to pull an already-planned meeting from a state that has become repressive.
However, I am extremely supportive of the notion that we should not be scheduling big meetings in jurisdictions that are openly hostile towards some of our members. Unless CLRS locations are set in stone more than a couple of years in advance…there isn’t any excuse for choosing this year’s venue.
In the “meet the candidates” questionnaire, one of the candidates did make a reasonable point that the CAS has an interest in making CE opportunities locally available for members in afflicted areas. On that basis, I wouldn’t make noise about regional affiliates’ (e.g. CASE) choice of venues (unless they were choosing a site in a city that ws being particularly odious as compared to others in that state), and there are of course plenty of online CE options available.
But unless meeting locations are locked in further in advance than I suspect…none of the big CAS events should be in Florida (or a few other states) until things change.
Between the CAS and AAA, this is the fourth straight meeting that is focused on reserving that is in a state that was unsafe for me to travel to. The last two CLRS were in Missouri and Florida, the last two AAA Opinion Seminars were in Arizona (which is now better) and Georgia.
I’ve expressed my concerns about the choice of meeting locations in past CAS member surveys.
I wonder if I might need to up that to explicitly responding to CAS surveys with a statement like “I have no interest in engaging with the CAS beyond maintaining my credentials until the CAS commits to not holding major meetings and seminars in jurisdictions that are openly hostile to some of our members”.
That probably won’t do much, since my engagement levels with the CAS are pretty low (and I’m not an AAA member), since I only go to big meetings once every 4-5 years, and since I still need to maintain my credentials (i.e. pay dues, and webinars are my primary way of satisfying CE), but…
Not to disregard your concerns, but I wonder to what extent the board members elected towards the end of last year could influence the choice of meeting location.
Even if they couldn’t have been involved in the initial decision, they could have been using their voices calling it wrong, but instead there is silence.