I just listened to an online Town Hall. Several more are scheduled.
Main proposals:
Board (starting with 2026 election cycle) will be 10-13. Mandatory at least 2 from outside US/Canada. Allowed 2 non-actuaries. (From presentation, I expect they will strongly try to have 2 non-actuaries.) Allowed up to 2 careers ASAs.
Big (IMO) change to election procedures. Far stronger candidate vetting. No longer competitive elections (except for President - actually President-Elect - where election largely unchanged. But President and Chairman of Board duties would be split, with Board Chairman selected by Board from all Board members; President’s term still 3 years).
No longer competitive elections means: for each candidate, you can votes For or Against, or you can abstain. Each candidate with more “For” than “Against” is elected, so the number of candidates on the ballot cannot exceed the number of available seats. Any candidate with more “Against” than “For” is not elected. Each of the candidates will have been endorsed by a selection committee (but limitation of candidates to the number of available seats, qualified but not “best” candidates may not make the ballot).[But: President is still a competitive election, pretty much as before]
A consequence: no more ballot access by petition (except maybe for President).
Also important, in their opinion and I tend to agree, much for emphasis on skill sets: what the board needs (in aggregate, NOT from each board member). They expect to identify (via a matrix of perhaps 4-6 skills) where the board has the greatest needs, considering skills of the returning members), and what the level of skills of the various candidates. This skill-set matrix approach will be a significant factor in choosing which candidates make the ballot.
Greg Heidrich, SOA Executive Director, was one of the two presenters. He pointed out that for some years now the CAS has had 2 non-actuaries on its board.
While there are several changes to the by-laws involved, at this stage there is only a Yes or No vote for the entire package. Some of the things I’ve described do not require a bylaw change, but most do. They strongly support the proposed changes.
Executive Director Greg Heidrich addressed that at the Town Hall. He pointed out that, under Illinois law, by petition of 5% (believe that was the number) of the members, the SOA would have to call a membership meeting where members could, as an extreme, vote out the entire board. I don’t know the mechanics, but it is a control. Also, as a practical matter, especially if multiple candidates got rejected, that would send a message that the members objected to what was being done.
I haven’t seen the 'business case" for why this change is needed. “Strengthen” the board, okay, but why? What is an activity that the Board wanted to take on in the past few years but couldn’t because of structure? What is an initiative that would be valuable to the membership that would be desirable in the future but would not be achievable because of the current Board structure?
This feels like “activity for the sake of activity”. I actually support the idea of non-actuaries on the board. But really only if they’re going to push the rest of the Board for better Society management, not just sit there and lick boots.
The Exec Director runs the place like a little fiefdom, the Board is powerless, the President is a beard, the marketing is preaching to the choir, and the exam system changes that are promoted as “growing the market” are really just polishing a turd.
And for feck’s sake, they haven’t produced an annual report to the membership since 2019!
I’ll be voting “No”, rather than abstaining, as a statement against the current mis-management of the Society. I encourage you that unless you’ve been absolutely convinced of the need for this change, to vote “No” rather than abstaining.
Thanks for the summary, @SteveWhite. I’d encourage anyone who isn’t clear on the case for change to attend a town hall or check out the website and FAQ. Reasonable people can disagree about the direction of the SOA and about the case for change, but we do explain our rationale. This has been a collaborative process over the course of a year where we’ve gotten input from many members and evolved the proposal accordingly. I encourage you to vote and of course would love to see you vote yes in support of this proposal that we think is a leap forward in governance.
Voting starts today. I will vote yes, but haven’t received the ballot e-mail yet, just an e-mail saying that the ballot e-mail will come from “SOA Election Coordinator” today.
Perspectives: Amanda Hug, the president and chair of the SOA, said in an email that strong board governance is vital to the association’s future success.
The overhaul proposal will “ensure the board reflects global membership and outside perspectives,” Hug said.
Having a smaller board should also make the board more nimble and give it the ability to handle emerging opportunities and challenges more quickly, Hug said.
Some critics of the proposal have said on LinkedIn that they are uncomfortable with moving away from competitive elections and dislike letting non-actuaries serve on the SOA board.
Kelly Rabin, a board member who works for a reinsurer based in Germany, said on LinkedIn that she supports the proposal.
Today, “the reality is that voting is concentrated in the U.S., and people vote for people they know or for people in their practice area,” Rabin said. “I am so excited for the additional transparency we are going to introduce to the election process, to make it much clearer to members how the board fits together in terms of skills and experience. I think an election process that looks much more like how corporate boards are selected is much more in line with the complexity and needs of an organization like ours.”
I could link to the LinkedIn discussions, but I don’t know how public some of them are (I’m linked to too many people…)
Anyway, I voted no.
I’m fine with some of the proposals, and not fine with others.
I think it’s a good idea to separate the Chair & President roles. I’ll give them that.
Thank you for your engagement throughout the recent vote on the proposed SOA Bylaws changes. After a thorough and thoughtful voting process, the proposal did not meet the required 2/3 threshold for approval. There were 4,369 valid votes cast in the election representing 21% of eligible voting Fellows of the SOA. Votes in favor of the proposal (yes) were 2,714 or 62.1%. Votes against the proposal (no) were 1,655 or 37.9%. We sincerely appreciate your time, attention, and the care that you brought to this important conversation.