ABCD Discipline Process Failures

Learn a bit about the profession's discipline process and how it was abused and join COFAD - help fix the professional discipline process for actuaries!

The case noted on the home page will be referred to as "Bob's" case.

The discipline process in the U.S. actuarial profession follows the steps contained in the ABCD Rules of Procedure (ROP) outlined below.

Included are notes on how the ABCD abused the process in Bob's case, shown in red italics.

Step 1: An actuary (referred to as the "subject actuary" or SA) is accused of possible violations of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) and a "complaint" is filed with the ABCD by a "complainant."

The complainant can be the ABCD itself but is usually another actuary who witnessed something they considered a possible violation of the Code of Professional Conduct (The Code).

• In Bob's case there were 23 complainants. Relevant to this case, all of the 23 complainants' publicly available records identify them as either social justice advocates, DE&I advocates, LGBTQ+, or LGBTQ+ allies. These are very commonly considered to be predominantly political "left-wing" groups. Bob is a "conservative." Bob and others opposed many of the positions and statements made by the CAS favoring these groups that were in violation of the CAS constitution (such as promoting transgenderism and DE&I)

Step 2: ABCD staff does initial complaint processing to determine the possible violations of the Code and forwards the results to the Chairperson and two Vice Chairpersons of the ABCD. At this stage the ABCD, per its own ROP, is supposed to "determine the nature of the possible violation(s) of the Code(s) involved so that the subject actuary will have a statement of the alleged misconduct sufficiently clear to address."

• On multiple occasions, Bob was denied this simple right to know what "alleged misconduct" the ABCD was pursuing.

• ABCD staff counsel labeled Bob's case a "speech case" from the very start.

• Many actuaries agree: the ABCD has absolutely no business being the profession's Speech Police or Sensitivity Police and was never given such a role, they just took it without approval from the profession. Bob's case is proof of how inept actuaries are at judging speech cases, as well as the impact of political biases on one's judgment in speech cases.

  
  

Step 3: The Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons of the ABCD discuss the matter and determine by majority vote the next steps:

  a. Dismiss the case, possibly with "guidance."

  b. Mediate if the case is a dispute but not a material violation.

  c. If a possible material violation of the code is suspected, the Chair, alone, assigns an investigator to the case. The investigator is required to determine facts of the case, then write a report of his findings.

• In September 2021, Bob and two others were accused by the CAS DEI staff leader who collected 17 other signatures.

• The two other actuaries were dismissed by the ABCD with guidance. The ABCD guidance they were given was ludicrous. They never told Bob why he was not dismissed.

• Bob formally objected to the investigator the chairman assigned because he had political views similar to the Chairman and the 23 accusers, polar opposite to Bob's. His objections were ignored by the ABCD Chairman.

Step 4:  The investigator issues a report. It is sent to the subject actuary for comment.

• Bob's comments on this report were sent to the ABCD. They were effectively ignored.

• The investigator insisted his only job was to "verify facts." He did not deal with facts as he stated but focused instead on delivering his own opinions about virtually everything.

• The investigator, in what many consider a very sloppy report, falsified charges against Bob. He stated in his report "In communicating to thousands of actuaries about his concerns for the strategic priorities of the CAS, (Bob) has also maligned and misrepresented the views and character of an actuary employed by the CAS, acting under the direction of the CAS board."

• The investigator made this accusation but never supplied a shred of evidence supporting his statement. This is because no such evidence exists.

• The investigator falsified this allegation!

• Bob subsequently had email correspondence with this "investigator" who refused to correct his errors.

Step 5:  The ABCD gathers the above items, and a quorum decides the next step:

  a. Seek additional information.

  b. Close the case.

  c. Counsel the subject actuary, then close the case.

  d. Or they call "a hearing before the ABCD, if the conduct of the subject actuary appears to present a possible material violation of the Code that may warrant discipline" (the worst case).

• They called such a hearing against Bob. The rules state, "If the ABCD calls for a fact-finding hearing, the ABCD shall provide the subject actuary written notice. The notice shall set forth the conduct which has raised questions regarding possible violation(s) of the applicable Code...

• The ABCD at this point obviously thought they had found something against Bob they considered a material violation of the Code that may warrant discipline, or they would not have called a hearing.

• As stated earlier, Bob was denied the simple, basic right to know what this purported conduct or violation was. On multiple occasions before the hearing, both Bob and his attorney wrote to the ABCD to determine what they were alleging as code violations. They refused to reply contrary to their own rules.

• In early 2022, Bob filed official bias complaints against the ABCD Chairman. After a very slow process managed by the AAA General Counsel, a Special Committee was eventually formed to look into this bias complaint.

• Because the ABCD, under this incredibly biased Chairman, refused to tell Bob or his attorney what he was being charged with AND because this biased Chairman was slated to Chair the Hearing against Bob, Bob refused to attend what would obviously be a very biased hearing. He sent his attorney instead, but his attorney had no power to act, question the witness, etc., under the ABCD's current rules.

• This Chairman should have recused himself from the case many months earlier when the complaints were filed against him, but instead he decided to recuse himself the very morning of Bob's ABCD Hearing, after he controlled all the key process steps taken against Bob up to that date. Even worse, he recused himself without notifying Bob.

• The AAA General Counsel would later try to hold Bob's refusal to attend this biased hearing against Bob, and as a reason for the AAA to do nothing regarding the Open Letter. Some have said "you simply can't make this stuff up!"

  
  

Step 6:  The ABCD issues their final recommendations and findings in a report to every professional society the subject actuary belongs to.

• In Bob's case the ABCD Findings and Recommendations were sent to the CAS and AAA discipline committees in January 2023.

• The evidence and the formal ABCD allegations against Bob were fabricated and falsified by the ABCD. No complainant ever made the allegations they charged Bob with. The ABCD effectively became a new complainant. The ABCD did not follow their own rules concerning the procedures safeguarding a subject actuary once a new "complaint" is made.

• The ABCD amplified the Investigator's falsified allegation (noted above) by fraudulently adding the critically needed words "and the public" to bolster their own falsified charges. They needed "and the public" because all they had to go on was the wording of Precept 1 of the Code which speaks to adversely reflecting the profession to the public.

• All other Precepts in the Code speak to technical, professional actuarial topics, none of which applied to Bob's case. Remember - it was a "speech case" according to the ABCD itself.

• In the Code, "PRECEPT 1. An Actuary shall act honestly, with integrity and competence, and in a manner to fulfill the profession’s responsibility to the public and to uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession." (obviously uphold it to the public)

  
  

• The falsified allegations against Bob were summarized by the ABCD as follows:

  
  

  • "To state it colloquially, (Bob) bullied (the CAS Staff DEI Member) in front of thousands of other CAS members and the public by attacking (her) character and role as a relatively junior CAS staff member who was simply doing the job she was hired to do. (Bob)'s conduct was unprofessional and materially violated Precept 1, Annotation 1-4, of the Code."

    
    

    The ABCD further stated in conclusion that: "The Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline recommends that (Bob) FCAS, MAAA be Publicly Reprimanded for materially violating Precept 1, Annotation 1-4, of the Code of Professional Conduct."

    
    

  • Bottom line: the investigator falsified charges against Bob, the ABCD intentionally further falsified and enhanced allegations by adding the wording "and the public," and "bullying" and based solely on these falsified allegations the ABCD recommended one of the toughest, career debilitating disciplines possible - Public Reprimand.

    
    

• These falsified charges were responsible for sending Bob to the next very grueling and very expensive steps.

  
  

  Step 7: The ABCD does not have final authority to implement discipline. Each of the CAS and AAA have their own Discipline Committees responsible to take whatever the ABCD recommends, do whatever further investigation they deem necessary, hold their own hearing, and make their own final discipline decision. The buck stops with the Discipline Committees.

• The final decision of the CAS Discipline Committee (CAS - DC) was dismissal of all charges against Bob. They also questioned the ABCD's process. The AAA Discipline Committee mirrored the CAS decision.

• For reasons that are uncertain, the CAS - DC did not come out in harsh condemnation of the ABCD, although privately they were aghast at what the ABCD did here. In summary, the CAS - DC stated the following pertinent points:

• 
  

  • "By vote of 7-0, the Discipline Committee Panel found no evidence of any Code of Professional Conduct violation by (Bob) in the ABCD Investigative Report or the broader CAS case file and therefore rejects the ABCD Findings and Recommendation that (Bob) be publicly reprimanded for materially violating Precept 1, Annotation 1-4 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Discipline Committee Panel’s decision is to dismiss the case against (Bob)."

  • "These emails do not mention (CAS DEI staff) by name or otherwise single her out. In the opinion of the Discipline Committee Panel, the contents of these emails do not contain statements that amount to violations of Annotation 1-4 or other tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct."

  • "In addition to the emails specifically referenced above, both the (CAS DEI staff) et al. complaint and the (xx) complaint make reference to a number of posts made by (Bob) on the We Love the CAS (“WLTC”) web site. The Discipline Committee Panel reviewed these posts to determine if any of the ABCD’s Findings were supported by the material found in them. The Panel makes the following observations:

    • 1. The web site posts were not distributed to thousands of actuaries. Members of the CAS were invited to visit the web site at their own initiative to review the posts if they wished.

    • 2. The web site post quoted by both (CAS DEI staff) and (xx) in support of the allegation interpreted by the ABCD as “bullying” is entitled “Woke Radical Left “Critical Race Theory” in the CAS Just Got Worse.” In this post, the only allegations made by (Bob) against (CAS DEI staff) are supported by facts: he indicates that she meets his definition of “Woke Radical Left” because she includes her “pronouns” in her signature block. We also note that (she) includes in her Teams / Zoom background (see the screen shots included in the case record as part of (Bob’s) presentation to the Hearing) imagery that is widely associated with Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter, and other movements that (Bob) labels “Woke Radical Left.” This conclusion is subject to debate. However, a debate is not the same as bullying."

    • Note: fewer than 40 people ever read that post. A competent investigator who verified facts would know this - it is a computer-generated number placed right on the post itself.

• The CAS - DC goes on to make other salient points directly refuting the ABCD, but perhaps the most damning is this:

  • "The Discipline Committee Panel notes that a singular source of concern was that the ABCD’s Findings and Recommendation do not align with the ABCD Investigator’s reported recommendations (the Investigator recommended Counseling or Guidance, which does not qualify as discipline; the ABCD significantly upgraded its selected penalty to Public Reprimand). Although this is not unprecedented, there was very little in the ABCD Report to explain or justify these deviations from the Investigator’s Report." . . . "When deviations of such magnitude occur, it is incumbent upon the opining body to provide explanations to assist in the review of their deliberations."

If you are interested in more detailed case particulars, please email us at:

fixtheabcd@gmail.com.