A more nuanced approach

One of the issues with the Academy’s updated meeting policy is that it applies the same policy to conference committees, public policy committees and the Actuarial Standards Board (the ‘ASB’). That makes no sense at all. Each committee has a different charge and different needs.

In the event that the Academy ever decides to discuss the ASB meeting policy with members of the Academy, profession and/or public, I have been trying to think of how to frame a meaningful discussion. In order to move the issue forward, there has to be a rational balancing of stakeholder needs. 

This might be one way to frame such a discussion. Let’s start with only the Quarterly ASB Meeting, and let’s get input and discuss the following:

1.      What are the concerns of current and past ASB members about individuals observing? When do they have a need to go into executive session? Has there been difficulty ejecting disruptive observers in the past? Is it a problem if accounts of meetings are published? Do open meetings impede deliberations? Does the ASB want to be subject to the Academy meeting policy?

2.      What is the public’s interest in open meetings? Why and when do government officials attend meetings? Why and when do members of the public attend? Does lack of openness diminish trust in the process? 

3.      What is the profession’s interest in open meetings? Does lack of openness diminish trust in the process? Would lack of openness cause one or more US-based actuarial organizations to pull out of the common code of conduct? Do meeting observers promote awareness of ASOPs and feedback on exposure drafts? Does the Academy dictating ASB meeting policy undermine the trust of the profession?

4.      What are Academy members’ interest in open meetings? Should Academy members be required to sign a COI acknowledgment when non-Academy members are not? Should Academy members be less able or more able to attend meetings than the general public? Is the ability to attend meetings a membership right or privilege?

5.      What is the Academy’s interest in closed meetings? Do closed meetings help the Academy mitigate reputational or legal risk?

Maybe these are not all of the questions or the right questions, but this seems like a decent starting point for a discussion. Once this fact-finding is complete, the following questions will almost answer themselves:

1.      What should be in the bylaws about open meetings for the ASB?

2.      What open meeting policy decisions should be left to the discretion of the ASB?

3.      What open meeting policy decisions should be left to the discretion of the Academy Board?

Then, having completed this exercise for the quarterly ASB meetings, the process would be repeated for all ASB meetings: the ASB annual planning meeting, ASB committees that are required to vote to recommend an ASOP, and other ASOP bodies that do not have the authority to vote to recommend a vote. Then a similar process would be followed for the Committee on Qualifications (‘CoQ’).

In this type of analysis, It is possible that there may be more compelling arguments for some meetings to be open than others. Maybe for the quarterly ASB meetings, there should be a very high bar for the meeting being closed or going into executive session because final ASOPs and exposure drafts are approved at these quarterly meetings. Maybe for committees and task forces that can’t propose ASOPs it would make more sense to have a default rule be that meetings are closed. And, maybe for committees that can propose ASOPs there should be a standard in-between that gives the committee discretion to go into executive session similar to the old meeting policy.

It would be great if it were clear that the Academy Board of Directors had done this analysis before adopting the updated meeting policy. Instead, it appears that they adopted a one size fits all approach to all Academy meetings and then the Academy has struggled to offer a consistent explanation for the meeting policy change.

Admittedly, the Sunshine Amendment is a one-size fits all approach for ASB and CoQ meetings. However, the Sunshine Amendment does not address other Academy meetings so it is more tailored than the Academy’s updated policy. And, the Sunshine Amendment errs on the side of transparency which has a much stronger public policy underpinning than erring on the side of closed meetings. Lastly, it was necessary to draft the Sunshine Amendment quickly in response to the Academy’s new meeting policy.

I have offered to meet with Academy on afternoon of March 22nd or the morning of March 23rd , but I am not sure that we will ever get to have this discussion…It would be great if we did! It has always seemed to me that reasonable, rational people could come to agreement on these issues in a short period of time if they sat down and reasoned through them.

Visit ASBCoQsunshine.com for more information.