In response to “Undivided” (In My Opinion, AR, November-December 2021), I agree that the CAS needs to adopt a method similar as to how the ASOPs are developed for the board to obtain comments on key changes before moving on those changes. I became a member of the CAS in May 1980, and our organization has grown since then. At the first CAS meeting I attended, I overheard one member saying to another that he no longer recognized all of the members present. Given that we are now at 9,000 plus members, I can relate to Stan Khury’s observation that relying on informal communication between members to ensure the board is in harmony worked at one time but is impractical today. The world around us is changing and we need to adapt to those changes, but surprising the membership and failing to obtain comments and respond to those member comments publicly in writing before enacting key changes is not an acceptable practice. Then too, there are some “rules of the road” in terms of how we operate beyond those in our Constitution that would be useful to codify. For example, we should formally state that all we know when deciding whether a candidate passes or fails an exam is the candidate’s number for that exam and the candidate’s score for that exam. A candidate’s gender, race, creed and LGBTQ status are irrelevant to the decision to give credit for an exam.
—Michael R. Larsen, FCAS, MAAA