What
concerns does this raise under the Actuaries’ Code?
Going
into a meeting, especially one in which a decision needs to be made or
ratified, without having appropriate background knowledge prevents Ashley from
knowing whether they could meet a number of areas of the Code. How can Ashley
be sure of their competence on this issue? How can Ashley be sure they don’t
have a conflict of interest? How does Ashley know whether there are any issues
with compliance with legal or regulatory principles?
Under the Code, it is incumbent upon Ashley to speak up and make
known the fact that they have concerns, both over the decision reached and the
process by which they were brought into this meeting.
The situation Ashley is in has hampered their ability to
communicate effectively, and must take steps to rectify that. There is clearly
a case of others misunderstanding, or rather assuming, Ashley’s lack of
objections to this decision.
If any other participants in the meeting are actuaries, then
similar concerns would apply to them.
How
should Ashley follow up now?
Ashley must make their concerns known as soon as possible. Time
is critical here, as the other participants clearly believe that the matter is
settled and things can proceed. Therefore, it might be wise for Ashley to raise
the fact that they have concerns immediately, and to follow up with more
details as soon as practical.
It may be that Ashley will face push back from those who
consider the matter settled. In that instance, they must be clear in their
communication, highlighting the importance of their concerns to the company or
client and may need to reach out to a senior figure for support in this
instance.
It would be worthwhile Ashley taking steps to avoid they, or
other colleagues, being put into the same situation in the future. This could
involve raising concerns around the process and diligence behind making
important decisions, ensuring explicit agreement on decisions, and avoiding the
risk of a key person not being involved in important topics.
What
could Ashley have done differently in the first place?
It might have been appropriate for Ashley to have declined to
act. With so little information and so little time, they were putting
themselves in a compromised position by agreeing to be in this meeting.
Ashley could have questioned why they, without any suitable
background on the issue being discussed, was asked to step in. Was there no one
else available more involved in the work? If the meeting specifically required
an actuary to be quorate, could Ashley have worked with a non-actuary with some
experience on the issue at hand.
Rearranging the meeting could have been an option however,
recognising that this may not have been possible, they should have very
explicitly communicated to the other participants their unpreparedness and make
it very clear that they would need time after the meeting before they could
agree with any points raised. Ashley also should have communicated how little
they were able to hear and be heard through other means during the meeting,
such as email or direct message.
