Don’t Regret Having Filed a Complaint
In my work over the past 14 years as a
regulator for the state of Minnesota, I’ve
identified quite a number of actuarial
statements of opinion that appeared to
violate the code in some way. (Because
most regulators look at hundreds of actuarial opinions every year, that’s simply
part of the job.) For those violations
that appeared to be material and that
weren’t resolved, I’ve filed complaints
with the Actuarial Board for Counseling
and Discipline (ABCD). Although each
complaint that I made still seems appropriate, over the years I’ve made fewer
complaints because I’ve become much
better at persuading actuaries to take
steps to resolve apparent violations.
As a member of the ABCD, I’ve heard
from several people who are dissatisfied
with the outcomes of complaints
that they made to the
ABCD. This bothers
Making a complaint takes too
much time and effort.
The first step is to request guidance from
the ABCD’s legal counsel or from any
member of the ABCD. We can explain
the process and can also give feedback
about the materiality of the issue that
you have identified.
The second step is usually an attempt
to resolve the issue. This doesn’t have to
take much time. If you discuss the issue
briefly with the other actuary and don’t
get cooperation, you don’t have to argue
with him or her. You can just state that
you disagree with his or her view and
that you are obliged by Precept 13
to report the apparent material
violation of the code to the ABCD.
If the actuary agrees to resolve
the issue, it’s his or her responsibility to do so, and you have
no obligation to help or give
advice. Your only obligation is
to determine whether you believe the actuary has indeed
resolved the issue.
When making a complaint, you don’t have to
investigate the violation
IN YOUR WORK AS AN ACTUARY, it’s quite possible that at
some point you’ll discover an apparent unresolved material violation
of the Code of Professional Conduct. Members of any of the five North
American actuarial organizations that have adopted the code are re-
quired to follow it—even when they aren’t providing actuarial services.
(When you read the code, you find that some precepts apply only when
providing actuarial services and others apply at any time in the life of
a member actuary.)
me, especially since these individuals
probably are representative of many
others. I will try to describe some of the
sources of this dissatisfaction and, in
the process, identify ways for achieving
a satisfactory outcome while complying
with all of our obligations under Precept
13 of the code.
by tracking down relevant documents
that you don’t already have. If you can
provide sufficient evidence to determine that an investigation is needed,
then the ABCD’s investigator, who is a
qualified actuary in the field for which
the work was done, will request relevant
documents from the actuary who did the
work. The investigator also will obtain
copies of relevant documents that are
in the public domain or are otherwise
available.
You don’t have to list every possible
violation, as you would in a lawsuit. If
there’s enough evidence to indicate a
possible material violation, the ABCD can
identify additional violations, if any, after
reviewing the investigator’s report.
However, keep in mind that ABCD
chairpersons who initially review each
complaint may not be familiar with the
background or circumstances involved
and may not understand why you believe
that a violation has occurred. It’s often
helpful to provide background information and an explanation justifying your
belief that the violation is material. Similarly, if you don’t attempt to resolve the
violation as described in Precept 13, it’s
helpful to explain why it wasn’t appropriate to do so in this case.
Making a complaint could also
make an enemy.
Always treat others with courtesy and
respect. If feasible, give the other actuary the opportunity to respond to the
issue and resolve it before you notify the
ABCD. Explain your obligation to make
a complaint if the issue isn’t resolved.
Don’t impugn the other actuary’s motives or expertise, and don’t personalize
the issue. Just stick to the facts.
If you have a public document that
provides evidence of a possible material
violation of the code, you can make a request for an inquiry without revealing
your name to the other actuary. However,
