Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Around the World > United Kingdom / Europe > Other Professional Discussions: United Kingdom / Europe
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-18-2010, 06:39 PM
actuary21c actuary21c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Studying for double bass & jazz piano
Posts: 1,786
Exclamation Risk areas to be mitigated in the current merger proposals

Here is a flowchart of what might be the possible course ahead for the current merger proposals from Councils.



The red (FAIL) areas represent situations in which either actual failure of the merger proposal occurs (in the ultimate stages), or before then, areas of high risk which could be mitigated by appropriate action beforehand by Councils.

For example, I think Councils have carried out the consultation on the new proposed name well, and there are likely to be few complaints or significant opposing arguments on that score.

However, at the moment, I think the consultation on the governing documentation, although on the face of it should have been successful (because it has been going on for months), has in fact been a resounding failure so far, because at present the significant concerns raised last year about members' rights being significantly reduced have been ignored. Worse, the consultation feedback document pretends that these concerns were illusory and that on the contrary, members' rights have been improved!
These claims seem to be at best misleading, and at worst false and disingenuous, and the authors of the feedback documents and latest draft charters have some explaining to do if the process is to regain any credibility. - See here for detailed reasons why the current consultation in my view has been a complete failure so far.

Councils have also failed so far to consult members as to who the first President of the new proposed merged body should be. They might argue that under the current governance documents, members don't get to choose their President(s) either. But that misses the point:

Last year's merger process was very poorly managed, and the appetite for members as a result for a greater say in who the President is is now much greater. If Councils want to change the existing arrangements by merging to a new body, then not listening to this desire from members runs the risk of alienating some members, so it is a risk area which is currently being ignored.

Finally, my understanding is that even assuming the merger is put to the vote and passes its hurdles in both bodies (75% for the Institute and 66.67% for the Faculty), if much more than 5% of Faculty members voted against, or if the turnout for the Faculty vote was low, then it might only take one Faculty member writing to the Privy Council objecting either to the winding up of their body, or to having to change their name from "Faculty" to "Institute and Faculty", for the Privy Council to have to consider whether to declare the merger null and void.

If I were currently on Council, I would be looking very carefully at how to reduce the number of red areas, in order to make this (now 3rd) merger attempt as smooth as possible.

I understand that David Wilkie wishes to put forward an alternative plan to members (to be described in outline in a letter to The Actuary magazine, and more fully on the web), which it will be worth Council members looking at and seriously considering whether it should also be put to members, particularly in order to mitigate against the risk of a challenge to Privy Council.

One thing seems clear to me, having seen the very poor state of the current proposed revised charter: some in Council don't seem to have been taking members' objections seriously, and this is a significant setback for the otherwise good work that Councils have been doing since August 2009 to rebuild members' confidence in a merger.

Members' concerns about reductions in their rights seem so far to have been treated with contempt by those overseeing the drafting of the charter - please let this be redressed as soon as possible, otherwise opposition to Councils' plans is likely to mount. It would be a big mistake to rush things now: despite the apparent several months being spent on the charter consultation, most of that has been wasted because members' legitimate concerns have been ignored, so the consultation really is now starting again from square one, with Councils facing the additional handicap that by ignoring members' concerns, they have aroused their suspicions again.
__________________
Spoiler:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
a21c is one of the better posters on the AO. That's not saying he's good.

UK software developer, actuary, musician, atheist. All posts in a personal capacity (unless explicitly stated otherwise in the post).

Last edited by actuary21c; 02-18-2010 at 10:06 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-24-2010, 01:35 PM
actuary21c actuary21c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Studying for double bass & jazz piano
Posts: 1,786
Default Updated, following useful meeting at Institute yesterday

Representatives of both Councils outlined the latest position arising from their consultation of members in meetings with FIDELIS representatives in Edinburgh (on Monday) and London (yesterday). I attended the London meeting and was impressed with changes being made to make the merger process much more of a dialogue with members than it was last year.

The charter consultation process now seems to be going very well, so (assuming that the appropriate changes are made) is moving in my opinion from a red to a green area. This and other improvements to the process as a whole should also reduce the risk of any potential challenge to Privy Council being made and the likelihood of such a challenge succeeding.

So here is an updated flowchart:

__________________
Spoiler:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
a21c is one of the better posters on the AO. That's not saying he's good.

UK software developer, actuary, musician, atheist. All posts in a personal capacity (unless explicitly stated otherwise in the post).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
institute, merger, privy council, risk management

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.14001 seconds with 9 queries