The Open Letter

A snapshot of the cover page:

The Open Letter is 40 pages long. A redacted copy is available for download below.

Open Letter (Redacted).pdf

Download PDF • 1.02MB

Following is a summary of this document.

Eight senior members of the CAS signed this letter. It's worth quoting key opening statements here.

Page 1: "The undersigned actuaries are duly concerned about abuses to our disciplinary process and have drafted proposals to improve the process. We attach hereto our recommendations, draft proposals and pertinent background material . . .

A series of actions and decisions by ABCD Complainants, the Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline, and its assigned Investigator occurred from August 2021 to January 2023, as outlined herein. It is our opinion that the 2021-2022 ABCD Chairman and all ABCD members involved in the December 2022 ABCD Hearing Panel in the subject case did not follow the letter or the spirit of the Code of Professional

Conduct (Code) which resulted in significant health and financial harm to a member of our profession.

The Subject Actuary (SA) involved . . . never violated the Code, and the case should never have proceeded as it did. All the harm he endured was avoidable. Our proposal ensures this will never happen again to another member of our profession.

The actions and decisions of the many Complaints and the ABCD itself call for significant, meaningful, and straightforward revisions to the Code of Professional Conduct and the ABCD Rules of Procedure. Such revisions should be based on proper investigation, study, and exposure to your membership.

The three goals we seek to achieve are: 1) The formation of a joint Task Force to investigate the facts and issues prompting our proposals, to study and recommend the revisions they deem necessary for exposure to the profession, as needed, and to recommend disciplinary action they deem warranted for those accountable for this unfortunate blemish on our profession,1 2) Consider using our proposals on a

temporary basis to ensure that what happened here does not happen in the period until the final revisions are determined, and 3) Expose to members of the profession the array of issues created by recent actuarial discipline cases prompting these revisions.

Thank you for your diligent and timely consideration of our recommendations and proposals."

The letter notes the divisive, public policy nature of DEI generally split political left vs. political right, that DEI issues initiated the vast majority of the allegations, and how certain "progressive" ABCD members clearly exhibited bias toward the SA.

Page 2: "We believe the case should have been recognized for what it was when complaints first started in 2021 and responsibly dismissed. The case was not dismissed but was aggressively moved forward by the ABCD to the investigation and hearing phases. Multiple examples of either bias, ineptitude, or both were exhibited by the ABCD resulting in false accusations by the ABCD and a recommendation for Public Reprimand. The proceedings cost the SA a great deal of stress, anxiety, and expense. He believed his duty was to protect his credentials and reputation, first for the sake of his family, but also for the sake of the profession."

The proposed changes to the Code of Professional Conduct are simple and well-supported, as follows.

Page 5: Proposed revisions: “ANNOTATION 1-4 (Revised). An Actuary shall not engage in any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or commit any Professional Act that reflects adversely on the actuarial profession.” and “ANNOTATION 1-5 (new). An Actuary 1) charged and found guilty of a felony demonstrating moral turpitude in any U.S. court of law or any analogous foreign tribunal, or 2) found to have committed securities or financial fraud in civil litigation in a court of law or any analogous foreign judicial process, or as a result of administrative enforcement proceedings, AND Said Actuary 1) has exhausted all appeals, or 2) does not contest the charges and findings, THEN Said Actuary shall be presumed to have failed to meet the standards of this Code and shall be subject to an immediate ABCD disciplinary review. The ABCD has the authority and responsibility to investigate such cases and recommend public discipline to appropriate actuarial organizations.” "

Add clarifications to the “Definitions” section of the Code for clarity and focus:

“Act: Actions, deeds, speech, or effects that accomplish or accompany Actuarial Services.”

“Professional Act: An Act by an Actuary while providing Actuarial Services to a Principal.”

"Had such wording been in place, we believe the cases documented herein would not have even reached the investigation stage, never adversely impacting the personal and professional life of the Subject Actuary as it did. The ABCD would not have had authority in that case."

Page 6: No changes are proposed to the Professional Standards of Practice.

Pages 7-9: Changes are proposed to the ABCD Rules of Procedure to introduce accountability into ABCD's work, as there should be. See pages 7 - 9 for details.

The remainder of the document provides support for the above changes, including a discussion of highlights of Bob's case that led to these recommendations.

Basically, it comes down to whether the ABCD should have the ability to judge free speech cases at all, given their lack of training and expertise, and the total lack of professional standards. Speech cases can be handled within an individual organization, or in court if necessary. The monumental failures of the ABCD in this case are evidence enough to keep them out of this arena permanently.