October 6, 2011
Dear Academy colleague,
I’m pleased to announce the results of the Academy’s first online election
for Regular Director as well as our vote on two proposed bylaws amendments.
Congratulations to Regular Director candidates Mary Bahna-Nolan, Catherine
Murphy-Barron and Ken Kent. Both proposed bylaws amendments also won. For the
number-crunchers and data massagers, here are the detailed results:
Participation
Eligible
Voters |
17,404 |
Web Ballots Cast |
2,788 |
Paper Ballots Cast |
261 |
Total Ballots Cast |
3,049 |
Participation Rate |
17.52% |
Vote for Regular Director
Candidate |
Raw Vote |
% |
Mary J. Bahna-Nolan |
2,224 |
78.2% |
Catherine Murphy-Barron |
2,193 |
77.1% |
Ken Kent |
2,065 |
72.6% |
Voters were instructed to vote for up to three candidates for Regular Director;
they were not required to cast any votes for Regular Director. Of the 3,049 who voted, 204 did not cast
at least one vote for a candidate for Regular Director.
Vote for Bylaws Amendment (Article III)
To Remove the Penultimate Past President from the Academy Board
|
Raw Vote |
% |
YES |
2,787 |
93.1% |
NO |
207 |
6.9% |
Of the 3,049 who voted, 55 did not cast a vote on this question.
Vote for Bylaws Amendments Relating to
Joint Discipline (Article IX)
|
Raw Vote |
% |
YES |
2,770 |
92.2% |
NO |
235 |
7.8% |
Of the 3,049 who voted, 44 did not cast a vote on this question.
In a final series of questions on the ballot, we asked Academy members to rate the online balloting process.
The response was overwhelmingly positive.
Satisfaction Rating |
Raw Vote |
% |
Very Satisfied |
1,465 |
52.5% |
Satisfied |
793 |
28.4% |
Neutral |
106 |
3.8% |
Dissatisfied |
27 |
1.0% |
Very Dissatisfied |
16 |
0.6% |
No Comment |
381 |
13.7% |
When the Very Satisfied and Satisfied responses are grouped together, 80.9%
of those answering the question rated the online election process favorably.
When the Dissatisfied and Very Dissatisfied responses are grouped together, 1.6%
of those answering the question rated the online election process unfavorably.
Removing the 381 No Comments from these comparisons moves the percentages to
93.8% favorable and 1.8% unfavorable.
Voters also were able to submit a comment and 157 (5.1%) did. The number of
comments is relatively small and certainly not scientific, but leadership will
of course consider these comments while evaluating this year’s online balloting.
The vast majority of the small number who commented praised the online balloting
process. Many praised the amount of supplemental material about the candidates
and bylaws amendments that was just a click away on the online ballot. A few
reported technical glitches in accessing the ballot. And some lamented the lack
of competitive choices in the election for three Regular Directors.
On that last point, the Board this year expanded the nominating procedures to
add nomination by petition to the two existing methods by which members are
nominated for Regular Director (nomination suggestions submitted directly to the
Nominating Committee; Nominating Committee asks active members to accept
nomination to the Board of Directors as a Regular Director). I certainly would
have liked to have seen some interested members take the steps necessary to gain
access to the ballot. I believe that the availability of a petition process for
regular director strengthens our governance. I intend to continue the discussion
of this question when the Board considers the 2012 elections process.
We learned a lot from this year’s expanded nominations process and online
balloting. For the 3,049 of our members who participated, I thank you not just
for taking the time out of your busy day to cast your votes, but also for
helping the Academy learn and work toward becoming a better organization, one
that better meets member needs and expectations. As always, thank you for your
time and interest in reading this message and thank you for your membership in
the American Academy of Actuaries.
Sincerely,
Mary Frances Miller
President
American Academy of Actuaries |